So, what, we deprive everybody of anything that might set a few sickos off?
The avaiability of alcohol sets off more than a few sickos, who drive toasted and kill, what, 10,000 people a year? More every year than died on 9/11, by all accounts. Your logic says we ban alcohol.
Argument against abortion sets off more than a few sickos, who go around shooting doctors and bombing clinics. Your logic says we ban debate.
The sight of innocent children on a playground sets off more than a few sickos, who go on to kidnap young girls from their bedrooms. Your logic says we forbid children playing in public.
There's a long, long history of attempts at banning things that set off a few sickos. History says the laws do lots of harm and no good at all: the sickos don't stop coming, and people don't stop doing the banned activity, and a lot of people spend a lot of time chasing and guarding the newly-minted so-called criminals, and both sets of people instantly become a dead weight on society.
Kids have been playing cops-and-robbers, cowboys-and-indians, good-guy-and-bad-guy since forever. There has *always* been a premium on really well-acted gory death. There has *always* been something new, that the banners get up in arms about. It *never* works. But the banners, like the sickos and the children and the new-found amusements, never stop coming.
Most people won't start using adblockers until the ad-mongers start shoving ads in people's faces and blaming them for not liking it. I don't block Google's ads because they're there if I want them and they're sometimes interesting. I block everything else because too many treat me like prey. They receive the same respect in return.
Don't you want to try some first resorts before getting up in arms?
Save the real contempt for the ones who reveal character, not the ones who've just been provoked into stupid and angry off-the cuff rejoinders. Ashcroft trying on ~critics==traitors~ on the Senate floor, or Fleischer with "Americans should watch what they say", or George II with "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens".
I think never keeping quiet about them being dependents suckling on a government teat is just about right. YMMV, this is just opinion.
Kip Hawley and the entire TSA are rice-bowlers, collecting paychecks from a spectacularly moronic WPA that spends money as fast as the real WPA ever did but doesn't produce a damned thing.
This guy knows it, and said it in a particularly insulting way. To the people collecting those paychecks, who also know it in their hearts, and are ashamed.
So, yeah, they got angry. The twaddle about 1st Amendment rights applying ~out there, not in here~ was just angry-stupid horking, not worth getting in a flap about.
But a copy of Windows that was previously "genuine" can suddenly become "counterfeit" merely because I give the copy to someone?
It was previously a genuine backup copy. When you give it to your friend, it's no longer a genuine backup copy. The copy you're using is paid for. The copy he's using isn't. You can talk all you want about the ways the two copies aren't different, but ignoring the ways they are is... disingenuous.
Still, my cynicism is a bit milder after seeing this interview, I'm not sure exactly why.
It's because he's a competent propagandist. Notice the lack of transcript? Tone, pacing, body language, carefully sloppily-put questions, ooooh, that Mac running Red Hat so casually, so constantly on screen... beautifully prepared.
But right up front he says what he's all about:
"Our goal, really, is to help change the conversation in the marketplace"
What's different about the Microsoft way of building software and the Open Source way? He goes on and on about how much testing Windows gets, and how unprofessional those Open Source three-guys-at-school sf.net projects are by comparison. This is how he and his team
"spend time helping clarify those things, helping people make unbiased decisions, unemotional decisions"
This video's essentially all responses built just like that.
"What if we integrated into Jin a Microsoft Word button -- would Mr. Maryanovsky then claim that we should publish the Microsoft source code as well?"
Rabinovitch is talking out his ass to suit the taste of people who don't and don't want to understand the GPL. The GPL's dead plain on his hypothetical: link with proprietary code: fine. Distribute the result: illegal.
Having read the article... Maryanovsky claims that the intimacy of this connection makes the two programs one
Maryanovsky claims that the distributed GPL-compliance part, the Jin-plus-sockets-adapter part, won't compile or run and is therefore not a complete program. The distributed IChessU client including that code is a complete program. Whether it can or cannot be decomposed into a proprietary part and an independent Jin GPL'ed part, it hasn't been. As distributed, his proprietary code won't work without his modified Jin, and his modified Jin won't work without his proprietary code.
You don't even have to reach the bestial ethics and desperate-thieving-halfwit argument behind ~rpc linking isn't linking~ to see that what he's done is a flat violation.
Would it be so bad if someone organized "grass roots" campaigns that were pro-OSS, pro-net-neutrality, etc.
Why, yes, it would be. [F/]OSS succeeds or fails because it actually is or isn't better. Net neutrality succeeds or fails because people do or don't actually care enough to badger their representative. "It's OK if we do it because we're the good guys" is what evil looks like in the mirror.
We've been calling the stupids stupid for so long they've just gotten fed up. They're mad as hell, they're not going to take it anymore, and they think they've taken over. They don't care what they have to do to get there and stay there, it's their turn now. And why should they listen to people who call them apes and idiots?
The source of the most strongly worded warnings I've been able to find against what we've been doing is... ironic.
"You" was the wrong word there. I'm sorry about that.
"Not much there for people who disagree on the value of all those other uses". That's why we have laws, to decide what to send armed and paid agents after, and what not. Any law enforcement agent who is "logically forced to conclude" he should blow past legal protections has made himself a self-righteous thug, the kind we send the cops after. I don't have any problem sharing his rage against the creeps he's chasing, but using rage to justify behavior is Devil's Advocacy indeed.
I bet that line works great with people you can punish for detectably regarding it as idiotic.
I agree that kids bypassing school rules isn't much of an argument for TOR. You can't make a simple point without putting your thumb on the scales like that? You should be ashamed.
I don't think space travel is beyond the capacity of private enterprise
"Exploration" is not the same as "travel". The topic is "exploration".
I'm fairly sure the people at JPL will be very surprised to learn their missions are really reconnaissance for the military invasions of Mars and Titan and Wild 2.
Re:You make the assumption that greedy is a bad th
on
Reverse Off-Shoring
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps I misread your blanket assertion that refusing a 5% return in favor of a 2% return is 'stupid'. Did some electrons go dogie on us here? Should I send Jake and his nephew out to search the tubes?
The discussion is on the ethics of seeking maximum return regardless of other considerations. That's commonly called "greed". Your example was of seeking maximum return regardless of other considerations. You called "its opposite 'stupid'".
My reply was addressing the necessary premise: for that to work without utterly disregarding morality, everything of value would have to be accurately reflected in the monetary calculations. In the ordinary run of things, that's accurate.
Where everything has a more-or-less accurate price, and nobody's got their thumb on the scale, then I agree with you: the market will sort it out, and trying to jiggle its elbows is only going to hurt people and make the jiggler look stupid. And under those circumstances, I'll agree with you on the 5%-vs-2% characterization. And I used ~magic~ in the same spirit you did. Emergent behavior is spooky, and this one generates nearly unmanageable torrents of wealth.
But that situation doesn't describe the topic.
See? "Either your premises are false," "or you're not addressing his point", even if we use greed only in its lighthearted-jargon sense.
Yah. I've got exactly that text on my clipboard right now. Typical hierarchy-worshipper logic, sneaking their lies in with their premises. It's his fault that we suborned crimes.
And why should the government be spending our tax dollars on "the thrill of exploration, the daring of it" and all that?
Because some things that nobody can make any money at are worth doing anyway? Because some of those are beyond the capacity of private enterprise? Because some of those actually produce benefits that would otherwise never be reached?
I see you've got all the karma you need. Here's a little kudos to go with it:-)
Re:You make the assumption that greedy is a bad th
on
Reverse Off-Shoring
·
· Score: 1
Do you believe that everything valuable can, let alone should, have a price tag?
If not, then either your premises are false even on your own terms or you're not addressing his point.
Capitalism is an excellent, unparalleled, peerless, unmatched system, in a league all its own and very nearly magical at allocating scarce resources for maximum return.
One simple and ironic fact is, it sucks at distributing the abundant ones: nobody can make any money on those. The only way to make it work there is to produce artificial scarcity.
In light doses that's a reasonable stunt that works just about as well as anything. At some point it crosses over, and becomes just fanatically insisting that everything's a nail.
Slashdot Mirror
I have two answers.
So, what, we deprive everybody of anything that might set a few sickos off?
The avaiability of alcohol sets off more than a few sickos, who drive toasted and kill, what, 10,000 people a year? More every year than died on 9/11, by all accounts. Your logic says we ban alcohol.
Argument against abortion sets off more than a few sickos, who go around shooting doctors and bombing clinics. Your logic says we ban debate.
The sight of innocent children on a playground sets off more than a few sickos, who go on to kidnap young girls from their bedrooms. Your logic says we forbid children playing in public.
There's a long, long history of attempts at banning things that set off a few sickos. History says the laws do lots of harm and no good at all: the sickos don't stop coming, and people don't stop doing the banned activity, and a lot of people spend a lot of time chasing and guarding the newly-minted so-called criminals, and both sets of people instantly become a dead weight on society.
Kids have been playing cops-and-robbers, cowboys-and-indians, good-guy-and-bad-guy since forever. There has *always* been a premium on really well-acted gory death. There has *always* been something new, that the banners get up in arms about. It *never* works. But the banners, like the sickos and the children and the new-found amusements, never stop coming.
Most people won't start using adblockers until the ad-mongers start shoving ads in people's faces and blaming them for not liking it. I don't block Google's ads because they're there if I want them and they're sometimes interesting. I block everything else because too many treat me like prey. They receive the same respect in return.
Don't you want to try some first resorts before getting up in arms?
Save the real contempt for the ones who reveal character, not the ones who've just been provoked into stupid and angry off-the cuff rejoinders. Ashcroft trying on ~critics==traitors~ on the Senate floor, or Fleischer with "Americans should watch what they say", or George II with "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens".
I think never keeping quiet about them being dependents suckling on a government teat is just about right. YMMV, this is just opinion.
Frogs boiling is an urban myth. I disagree with the point, too: save the kerfluffle for when there's real danger. Crying wolf and all that.
Kip Hawley and the entire TSA are rice-bowlers, collecting paychecks from a spectacularly moronic WPA that spends money as fast as the real WPA ever did but doesn't produce a damned thing.
This guy knows it, and said it in a particularly insulting way. To the people collecting those paychecks, who also know it in their hearts, and are ashamed.
So, yeah, they got angry. The twaddle about 1st Amendment rights applying ~out there, not in here~ was just angry-stupid horking, not worth getting in a flap about.
E S S D E N E E NW. It just popped into my head. Talk about setting the hook deep!
It was previously a genuine backup copy. When you give it to your friend, it's no longer a genuine backup copy. The copy you're using is paid for. The copy he's using isn't. You can talk all you want about the ways the two copies aren't different, but ignoring the ways they are is... disingenuous.
It's because he's a competent propagandist. Notice the lack of transcript? Tone, pacing, body language, carefully sloppily-put questions, ooooh, that Mac running Red Hat so casually, so constantly on screen ... beautifully prepared.
But right up front he says what he's all about:
What's different about the Microsoft way of building software and the Open Source way? He goes on and on about how much testing Windows gets, and how unprofessional those Open Source three-guys-at-school sf.net projects are by comparison. This is how he and his team
This video's essentially all responses built just like that.
TFA:
Rabinovitch is talking out his ass to suit the taste of people who don't and don't want to understand the GPL. The GPL's dead plain on his hypothetical: link with proprietary code: fine. Distribute the result: illegal.
Maryanovsky claims that the distributed GPL-compliance part, the Jin-plus-sockets-adapter part, won't compile or run and is therefore not a complete program. The distributed IChessU client including that code is a complete program. Whether it can or cannot be decomposed into a proprietary part and an independent Jin GPL'ed part, it hasn't been. As distributed, his proprietary code won't work without his modified Jin, and his modified Jin won't work without his proprietary code.
You don't even have to reach the bestial ethics and desperate-thieving-halfwit argument behind ~rpc linking isn't linking~ to see that what he's done is a flat violation.
Why, yes, it would be. [F/]OSS succeeds or fails because it actually is or isn't better. Net neutrality succeeds or fails because people do or don't actually care enough to badger their representative. "It's OK if we do it because we're the good guys" is what evil looks like in the mirror.
We've been calling the stupids stupid for so long they've just gotten fed up. They're mad as hell, they're not going to take it anymore, and they think they've taken over. They don't care what they have to do to get there and stay there, it's their turn now. And why should they listen to people who call them apes and idiots?
The source of the most strongly worded warnings I've been able to find against what we've been doing is... ironic.
Cool. What's the working title on THAT game?
"You" was the wrong word there. I'm sorry about that.
"Not much there for people who disagree on the value of all those other uses". That's why we have laws, to decide what to send armed and paid agents after, and what not. Any law enforcement agent who is "logically forced to conclude" he should blow past legal protections has made himself a self-righteous thug, the kind we send the cops after. I don't have any problem sharing his rage against the creeps he's chasing, but using rage to justify behavior is Devil's Advocacy indeed.
I bet that line works great with people you can punish for detectably regarding it as idiotic.
I agree that kids bypassing school rules isn't much of an argument for TOR. You can't make a simple point without putting your thumb on the scales like that? You should be ashamed.
Not much there for people who disagree with you on the value of all those other uses, is there?
"Exploration" is not the same as "travel". The topic is "exploration".
I'm fairly sure the people at JPL will be very surprised to learn their missions are really reconnaissance for the military invasions of Mars and Titan and Wild 2.
Perhaps I misread your blanket assertion that refusing a 5% return in favor of a 2% return is 'stupid'. Did some electrons go dogie on us here? Should I send Jake and his nephew out to search the tubes?
The discussion is on the ethics of seeking maximum return regardless of other considerations. That's commonly called "greed". Your example was of seeking maximum return regardless of other considerations. You called "its opposite 'stupid'".
My reply was addressing the necessary premise: for that to work without utterly disregarding morality, everything of value would have to be accurately reflected in the monetary calculations. In the ordinary run of things, that's accurate.
Where everything has a more-or-less accurate price, and nobody's got their thumb on the scale, then I agree with you: the market will sort it out, and trying to jiggle its elbows is only going to hurt people and make the jiggler look stupid. And under those circumstances, I'll agree with you on the 5%-vs-2% characterization. And I used ~magic~ in the same spirit you did. Emergent behavior is spooky, and this one generates nearly unmanageable torrents of wealth.
But that situation doesn't describe the topic.
See? "Either your premises are false," "or you're not addressing his point", even if we use greed only in its lighthearted-jargon sense.
SQL: San Carlos, CA. Walking distance from Oracle headquarters.
Yah. I've got exactly that text on my clipboard right now. Typical hierarchy-worshipper logic, sneaking their lies in with their premises. It's his fault that we suborned crimes.
I see you've got all the karma you need. Here's a little kudos to go with it :-)
Do you believe that everything valuable can, let alone should, have a price tag?
If not, then either your premises are false even on your own terms or you're not addressing his point.
Capitalism is an excellent, unparalleled, peerless, unmatched system, in a league all its own and very nearly magical at allocating scarce resources for maximum return.
One simple and ironic fact is, it sucks at distributing the abundant ones: nobody can make any money on those. The only way to make it work there is to produce artificial scarcity.
In light doses that's a reasonable stunt that works just about as well as anything. At some point it crosses over, and becomes just fanatically insisting that everything's a nail.