His point is that the net is becoming unusable due to the fact that it was designed to be used by intelligent people--but now it's being used by morons. Given that it was meant to withstand nuclear attack, I suppose this demonstrates the morons are worse than nukes. Yay for democracy!
Mass murder, while obviously wrong, can sometimes be less wrong than the alternatives. Considering that spammers are thieves (of bandwidth, CPU, disk, time and other resources), and considering that the appropriate punishment for thieves is death, and considering that we might as well get a laugh out of their demise, nuking an island full of spammers is a perfectly fine idea. It's certainly better than letting the bastards live.
The fundamental error this columnist makes is twofold: first, that there is no monolithic `Linux corporate entity'; second, that the goal of this non-existent entity is to convert everyone to Linux.
`Linux' (really, free software in general) is not a person; it is not a corporation; it is the emergent product of thousands of developers. There is no central direction. There is no-one to enforce any silly dicta which come down the pike. It's freedom, baby: everyone doing his own thing, and thereby producing something great and Free. Sure, it has rough edges, but it's truly Free.
Even if one looks at the `Linux' community as a self-directed organism, is its goal conversion from Windows? Is its goal dumbed-down software? No: the goal of the free software community is freedom--and we have that. It is for proprietary software users to come to us; not for us to come to them. If users wish to remain lusers, so be it: we will help them become better, but we will not worsen ourselves.
How would he--or any other person advocating uniformity--propose to enforce a common standard on all? By violence? The basic issue is that we do not all agree on what is good. I like Ion; you like fvwm2; he likes sawfish. Which would you choose? Each has its pros and cons. Each is infinitely better than the utterly loathsome metacity.
As long as there is freedom, there will not be uniformity. Since freedom is the highest good of free software, free software will never be uniform. Particular collections might be (witness the GNU Project, whose tools mostly follow the same conventions), but the whole will never be.
This is a good thing, because freedom is good, and choice is good, and people are different. To those with brains, freedom and choice are exhilarating--who cares for those without?
Anyone know why they've stopped making RPMs? Some of us like having mozilla installed in standard locations, and don't like having to recreate e.g. our plugin dirs.
Sure, I could stick with 1.4, but it is truly evil--I end up having to quit and restart several times daily due to some odd bug or another which causes me to need to double-follow links.
German does the same thing, with is wo- (where) and da- (there) compounds. I try to use the English where- and there- compounds as much as possible, because they are both cool and useful. I like to write therefor and wherefor instead of therefore and wherefore, though:-)
Ummm...those `nerds' were fools: it's properly pronounced with a soft g, like j. In English, g+i is almost always pronounced like j+i (giant, gigantic, gill (1/2 cup). The only exception I can think of is gill (the part of a fish).
So what you are saying is that if X will eventually become Y, then X == Y even if presently, it is not identical to Y.
No, not at all. I am saying that an embryo is the equivalent of a 24-year-old in exactly the same fashion that a 12-yr-old is the equivalent of a 72-yr-old. There's no magical moment at which one becomes human, no easy-to-define point before which there is naught and after which there is something. Except for conception: before it, there are naught but gametes; after it, there is something new. But everything else is a change in quality, not a change in kind.
Prove to me then that a tomato seed has all the properties of tomato plant heavy laden with plump ripe fruit.
Why? It's immaterial. An infant hasn't the properties of a four-yr-old--but we don't allow him to be slain. A four-yr-old hasn't the properties of an eight-year-old--but we don't allow him to be slain. That an embryo hasn't the properties of an infant does not necessarily mean that we should allow him to be slain.
Obviously, nobody will argue with you that a seed or embryo has potential to become something else. The issue is simply this: until it actually becomes something else, it is not that thing.
That's the key: an embryo is a human being, for any useful definition thereof. He's not his mother: although half his genes are hers, half are not. He's not an eggplant. He's not a fish. He's not a chunk of quartz. What is he, then? My answer is that he's human. What would you argue--that it's a...?
Here is an easy experiment. Go to the bank. Deposit 1 unit of your currency. Do some math, explain to the manager that you will have a million in X years and then ask for a million back (1 == 1m because of interest - at least it will eventually grow into a 1m). Bring ear plugs when you do this, the laughter will be deafening.
Once again, you don't seem to get it. I don't care about the future properties of an embryo, but about its present nature. A mental defective hasn't the same properties that a normal man has--he's certainly less than you or I. Should he be terminated? An infant hasn't the properties of a full-grown man. Should he be terminated? It's not about what something will be: it's about what it is. And an embryo is most certainly a human being.
What's so magical about passing through the birth canal? Being squeezed through a tube over a period of hours makes one human? It's legal to kill immediately before one exits, but not immediately after?
See Libertarians for Life for an secular, scientific argument on why conception is the only reasonable starting point for human life. If this were just a moral issue, I'd agree with you. Morality is not a fit subject of legislation. But it's not: it's most certainly a legal issue, for murder is appropriately legislated against.
It assumes that fertilized egg is the equal of a fully formed sentient being.
It's not a `fertilised egg.' By definition, once a sperm and egg unite it has become something else entirely. `Fertilised egg' is a euphemism for `human,' like `reproductive freedom' is a euphemism for slaughter on a grand scale.
Are you a vegetarian? If not, explain why it is that a completely non-sentient mass of cells, should have more rights the many animals, birds, and fish we eat?
They're not human beings--they're beasts. An infant is not viable: it relies entirely on others to clothe it, feed it, bathe it, protect it from the elements &c. It is barely sentient; it is much less capable than a horse or dog--and yet only the worst people claim that it is anything but human. There is no clear-cut point at which one can say, `on this side it is one thing; on that it is another,' save for conception. Everything after that is gradual. An infant becomes a toddler which becomes a child which becomes a youth which becomes a man, but the change is forever gradual, without any clear divisions. Likewise an embryo becomes a foetus becomes an infant.
Potential has nothing to do with it. Actuality has everything: an embryo is a unique human being, seperate from his mother and father (although dependent on his mother, of course), unlike anyone else ever to exist. The sperm and egg are just cells, and I've no problem with treating them as one wishes, of course.
The day you prove that a tomato seed is the exact same thing as a ripe tomato, you will have a chance in this argument. Potential does not count. We are talking identical properties - 2 inches in diameter, red, plump, juicy and full of little yellow seeds.
The situations are completely different. A tomato seed is a living tomato plant--just very, very young. There's a great deal of difference between a tomato seed and a scrap of tomato leaf. Likewise, an embryo is a living human being--just very young. There's a great deal of difference between an embryo and a piece of hair, or a slice of liver.
The logical extension of your argument is that, since infants are less capable than dogs or cattle, we should be able to treat them less well.
embryonic stem cells are being harvested from aborted fetuses. fetuses that were legally terminated and currently, are waste. by banning science from using this unfortunate situation to the best of their ability, people are ensuring that absolutely no good comes from the situation.
if lives can be saved by studying those who have left - then why in the world would we stand in the way of that?
What about the Holocaust then?
Skin is being harvested from terminated Jews. Jews that were legally terminated and currently, are waste. By banning industry from using this unfortunate situation to the best of its ability, people are ensuring that absolutely no good comes from the situation.
If goods can be made by using those who have left--then why in the world would we stand in the way of that?
You see the parallel? It was clearly monstrous to make soap and lampshades from Jews; it was clearly monstrous to harvest gold from their teeth; it was clearly monstrous to use them for medical experiments. It is clearly monstrous to murder innocents and use their corpses. Why?
The problem is that it normalises the situation: it shows that we're really quite alright with murdering >1 million humans a year. It shows that, as a society, we approve of it. The solution is not to ban embryonic stem cell research, though: it is to prosecute murder.
No: volume is measured in units like gallons, and weight in units like pounds. French units are silly and not nearly as easy to manipulate as are real units.
Stem cell research involves the creation and subsequent murder of human beings. It's hardly on par with genetic techniques on animals or lower-yet lifeforms.
No, it's not correct. `To beg the question' has a very specific meaning; to use it otherwise is to misuse. What you have posited is a folk etymology (there's a technical term for it which eludes me at the moment), like claiming fuck stands for `for unlawful carnal knowledge' (it does no such thing: it's a proper Germanic word, cognate to fican, ficken &c.), or claiming that history is sexist, or creating *burgle from burglary.
That a thousand people misuse a phrase does not make it correct.
There is absolutely *nothing* difficult about making a GUI or a bit of network code. Which of course begs the question, WTF are they doing?
Raises the question, raises it. Not begs, raises. To beg the question is to engage in circular reasoning. To raise a question is to bring one up. This error crops up all the fsckin' time on/.; I figure some fanboy saw the phrase `beg the question' and thought it sounded cool.
Incidentally, the Skeptic's Dictionary is a poor reference for examples of begging the question. But the Nizkor Project is a good one.
Golly, we had the unmitigated gall to convict a US citizen who has admitted going to Afghanistan to fight US soldiers there. How terrible of us!
You remind me of your cousins in the St. Patrick's Brigade of the Mexican Army during the Mexican-American War (US citizens who bore arms against the US). They, too, wished to be free to fight their own country without consequences.
Man, some days I'm really embarassed that I've Irish blood. Please, do us all a favour and leave.
Of course, if you're honest and say that Mike might have been conspiring to defending Afghanistan from external invasion, it doesn't sound quite as evil.
He conspired to aid foreign invaders of Afghanistan (the Taliban were mostly foreigners). He conspired to attack US troops. He's an American citizen, who wished to kill American soldiers. That's called treason.
This guy simply wanted to go home, and protect his country from what he viewed as US aggression.
He's a Palestinian--Palestine is nowhere near Afghanistan, and is populated by Arabs, not Afghans (Afghans are Caucasians who speak languages related to Persian; Arabs are Semites speaking a Semitic language). What is more, he's a US citizen who wished to travel to Afghanistan to fight US troops there.
If I can't do whatever the hell I want with the supposedly "free" code, it's not free.
It's not the code which is free: it's the software, and it's you. You are free to modify it (which you would not be, were it proprietary). You are free to redistribute it (which you would not be, were it proprietary). What you are not free to do is take those freedoms away from others.
As to whom free software benefits--you need only look at the example of Linux versus BSD. Which is more useful? Which is more widespread? Which is truly free, and always will be?
Why should I donate my work to a project when someone else might just take it from me? That's what the BSD does. Sure, if I'm a taker, the BSD is great--but if I'm a creator, it sucks. Whereas with the GPL, I know that my software will always be maximally useful to its users, and I know that I am very likely to get their work in return for my own.
In a way, proprietary software is more socialist: concerned with centralisation and force. Whereas free software is just that: free, concerned with liberty.
Just like with the GPL, if you release code under a BSD license, it will always be freely distributable over its entire lifetime. However, unlike the GPL, code released under a BSD license can be used freely by anybody for any purpose. The biggest difference is that someone can add their code to BSD code and do whatever the hell they want, while under the GPL they must GPL their new code.
The FSF is not the Free Code Foundation; it is the Free Software Foundation. It is concerned for users. If you take BSDed code and incorporate it in your proprietary software, then that code will not be free, and the software will not be free, and the user thereof will most certainly not be free.
Proprietary code is evil: it prevents users from solving their problems. It gets in the way of getting the job done, which is the sole reason we have computers to begin with.
If a manufacturer jacked the price up like that, he would lose business to manufacturers not jacking the price up like that. That's the beauty of competition.
So where should the data files for all applications live? There's not really a good place for them.
/usr/share or/usr/local/share? Although to be honest,/var probably makes the most sense, as it's also where print spools, mail files and the rest end up. share is more for little-changing non-configuration application data (e.g. logos); web pages change fairly frequently.
Slashdot Mirror
His point is that the net is becoming unusable due to the fact that it was designed to be used by intelligent people--but now it's being used by morons. Given that it was meant to withstand nuclear attack, I suppose this demonstrates the morons are worse than nukes. Yay for democracy!
Mass murder, while obviously wrong, can sometimes be less wrong than the alternatives. Considering that spammers are thieves (of bandwidth, CPU, disk, time and other resources), and considering that the appropriate punishment for thieves is death, and considering that we might as well get a laugh out of their demise, nuking an island full of spammers is a perfectly fine idea. It's certainly better than letting the bastards live.
`Linux' (really, free software in general) is not a person; it is not a corporation; it is the emergent product of thousands of developers. There is no central direction. There is no-one to enforce any silly dicta which come down the pike. It's freedom, baby: everyone doing his own thing, and thereby producing something great and Free. Sure, it has rough edges, but it's truly Free.
Even if one looks at the `Linux' community as a self-directed organism, is its goal conversion from Windows? Is its goal dumbed-down software? No: the goal of the free software community is freedom--and we have that. It is for proprietary software users to come to us; not for us to come to them. If users wish to remain lusers, so be it: we will help them become better, but we will not worsen ourselves.
How would he--or any other person advocating uniformity--propose to enforce a common standard on all? By violence? The basic issue is that we do not all agree on what is good. I like Ion; you like fvwm2; he likes sawfish. Which would you choose? Each has its pros and cons. Each is infinitely better than the utterly loathsome metacity.
As long as there is freedom, there will not be uniformity. Since freedom is the highest good of free software, free software will never be uniform. Particular collections might be (witness the GNU Project, whose tools mostly follow the same conventions), but the whole will never be.
This is a good thing, because freedom is good, and choice is good, and people are different. To those with brains, freedom and choice are exhilarating--who cares for those without?
BTW, WTF's up with /. not respecting ‐?
Sure, I could stick with 1.4, but it is truly evil--I end up having to quit and restart several times daily due to some odd bug or another which causes me to need to double-follow links.
German does the same thing, with is wo- (where) and da- (there) compounds. I try to use the English where- and there- compounds as much as possible, because they are both cool and useful. I like to write therefor and wherefor instead of therefore and wherefore, though:-)
Ummm...those `nerds' were fools: it's properly pronounced with a soft g, like j. In English, g+i is almost always pronounced like j+i (giant, gigantic, gill (1/2 cup). The only exception I can think of is gill (the part of a fish).
Perhaps you meant operating environment? Linux is certainly not a full-fledged OE.
Well of course--they're Yankees.
No, not at all. I am saying that an embryo is the equivalent of a 24-year-old in exactly the same fashion that a 12-yr-old is the equivalent of a 72-yr-old. There's no magical moment at which one becomes human, no easy-to-define point before which there is naught and after which there is something. Except for conception: before it, there are naught but gametes; after it, there is something new. But everything else is a change in quality, not a change in kind.
Prove to me then that a tomato seed has all the properties of tomato plant heavy laden with plump ripe fruit.
Why? It's immaterial. An infant hasn't the properties of a four-yr-old--but we don't allow him to be slain. A four-yr-old hasn't the properties of an eight-year-old--but we don't allow him to be slain. That an embryo hasn't the properties of an infant does not necessarily mean that we should allow him to be slain.
Obviously, nobody will argue with you that a seed or embryo has potential to become something else. The issue is simply this: until it actually becomes something else, it is not that thing.
That's the key: an embryo is a human being, for any useful definition thereof. He's not his mother: although half his genes are hers, half are not. He's not an eggplant. He's not a fish. He's not a chunk of quartz. What is he, then? My answer is that he's human. What would you argue--that it's a...?
Here is an easy experiment. Go to the bank. Deposit 1 unit of your currency. Do some math, explain to the manager that you will have a million in X years and then ask for a million back (1 == 1m because of interest - at least it will eventually grow into a 1m). Bring ear plugs when you do this, the laughter will be deafening.
Once again, you don't seem to get it. I don't care about the future properties of an embryo, but about its present nature. A mental defective hasn't the same properties that a normal man has--he's certainly less than you or I. Should he be terminated? An infant hasn't the properties of a full-grown man. Should he be terminated? It's not about what something will be: it's about what it is. And an embryo is most certainly a human being.
What's so magical about passing through the birth canal? Being squeezed through a tube over a period of hours makes one human? It's legal to kill immediately before one exits, but not immediately after?
See Libertarians for Life for an secular, scientific argument on why conception is the only reasonable starting point for human life. If this were just a moral issue, I'd agree with you. Morality is not a fit subject of legislation. But it's not: it's most certainly a legal issue, for murder is appropriately legislated against.
Only if it doesn't apply (e.g., one can certainly mention them when discussing WWII). And in this case, the parallels are useful. So, nope.
It's not a `fertilised egg.' By definition, once a sperm and egg unite it has become something else entirely. `Fertilised egg' is a euphemism for `human,' like `reproductive freedom' is a euphemism for slaughter on a grand scale.
Are you a vegetarian? If not, explain why it is that a completely non-sentient mass of cells, should have more rights the many animals, birds, and fish we eat?
They're not human beings--they're beasts. An infant is not viable: it relies entirely on others to clothe it, feed it, bathe it, protect it from the elements &c. It is barely sentient; it is much less capable than a horse or dog--and yet only the worst people claim that it is anything but human. There is no clear-cut point at which one can say, `on this side it is one thing; on that it is another,' save for conception. Everything after that is gradual. An infant becomes a toddler which becomes a child which becomes a youth which becomes a man, but the change is forever gradual, without any clear divisions. Likewise an embryo becomes a foetus becomes an infant.
Potential has nothing to do with it. Actuality has everything: an embryo is a unique human being, seperate from his mother and father (although dependent on his mother, of course), unlike anyone else ever to exist. The sperm and egg are just cells, and I've no problem with treating them as one wishes, of course.
The day you prove that a tomato seed is the exact same thing as a ripe tomato, you will have a chance in this argument. Potential does not count. We are talking identical properties - 2 inches in diameter, red, plump, juicy and full of little yellow seeds.
The situations are completely different. A tomato seed is a living tomato plant--just very, very young. There's a great deal of difference between a tomato seed and a scrap of tomato leaf. Likewise, an embryo is a living human being--just very young. There's a great deal of difference between an embryo and a piece of hair, or a slice of liver.
The logical extension of your argument is that, since infants are less capable than dogs or cattle, we should be able to treat them less well.
if lives can be saved by studying those who have left - then why in the world would we stand in the way of that?
What about the Holocaust then?
You see the parallel? It was clearly monstrous to make soap and lampshades from Jews; it was clearly monstrous to harvest gold from their teeth; it was clearly monstrous to use them for medical experiments. It is clearly monstrous to murder innocents and use their corpses. Why?
The problem is that it normalises the situation: it shows that we're really quite alright with murdering >1 million humans a year. It shows that, as a society, we approve of it. The solution is not to ban embryonic stem cell research, though: it is to prosecute murder.
Plus, don't Newtons measure force?
Stem cell research involves the creation and subsequent murder of human beings. It's hardly on par with genetic techniques on animals or lower-yet lifeforms.
Postfix does the same, and doesn't have a screwy installation scheme...
Well, technically speaking anyone using Windows is a nobody...
That a thousand people misuse a phrase does not make it correct.
Raises the question, raises it. Not begs, raises. To beg the question is to engage in circular reasoning. To raise a question is to bring one up. This error crops up all the fsckin' time on /.; I figure some fanboy saw the phrase `beg the question' and thought it sounded cool.
Incidentally, the Skeptic's Dictionary is a poor reference for examples of begging the question. But the Nizkor Project is a good one.
You remind me of your cousins in the St. Patrick's Brigade of the Mexican Army during the Mexican-American War (US citizens who bore arms against the US). They, too, wished to be free to fight their own country without consequences.
Man, some days I'm really embarassed that I've Irish blood. Please, do us all a favour and leave.
He conspired to aid foreign invaders of Afghanistan (the Taliban were mostly foreigners). He conspired to attack US troops. He's an American citizen, who wished to kill American soldiers. That's called treason.
He should be hanged for it.
He's a Palestinian--Palestine is nowhere near Afghanistan, and is populated by Arabs, not Afghans (Afghans are Caucasians who speak languages related to Persian; Arabs are Semites speaking a Semitic language). What is more, he's a US citizen who wished to travel to Afghanistan to fight US troops there.
He should be hanged for treason.
It's not the code which is free: it's the software, and it's you. You are free to modify it (which you would not be, were it proprietary). You are free to redistribute it (which you would not be, were it proprietary). What you are not free to do is take those freedoms away from others.
As to whom free software benefits--you need only look at the example of Linux versus BSD. Which is more useful? Which is more widespread? Which is truly free, and always will be?
Why should I donate my work to a project when someone else might just take it from me? That's what the BSD does. Sure, if I'm a taker, the BSD is great--but if I'm a creator, it sucks. Whereas with the GPL, I know that my software will always be maximally useful to its users, and I know that I am very likely to get their work in return for my own.
In a way, proprietary software is more socialist: concerned with centralisation and force. Whereas free software is just that: free, concerned with liberty.
The FSF is not the Free Code Foundation; it is the Free Software Foundation. It is concerned for users. If you take BSDed code and incorporate it in your proprietary software, then that code will not be free, and the software will not be free, and the user thereof will most certainly not be free.
Proprietary code is evil: it prevents users from solving their problems. It gets in the way of getting the job done, which is the sole reason we have computers to begin with.
If a manufacturer jacked the price up like that, he would lose business to manufacturers not jacking the price up like that. That's the beauty of competition.