If esr was really irrelevant, you would not need to say so. You would not have bothered to reply. That you did says that you are propagandizing - saying things which are not true in the hope of making them true. Since we have established that you are willng to compromise your ideals in favor of a larger goal, please explain why it is wrong foe ESR to do so.
Don Giovanni made the same stupid mistake of assuming that we would play favorites. Should rip you a new asshole, too? Sheesh, what is with you people? From where comes the idea that we are biased towards one party or another? Is there any evidence of this? The Halloween Documents? Those were Microsoft behaving badly, and us pointing that out. So now that Microsoft is starting to release open source software (aka behaving nicely) somebody thinks we would treat them poorly? I'm like "What the fuck? Surely there's a LIMITED amount of stupidity in the world, why is there so much of it concentrated around this issue??"
I'm aghast. Really, I am. I hope you're blushing. Even if you have no intellectual prowess, at least you can feel badly about making such a world-class error.
My understanding is that Microsoft is interested in supporting their community of users with an open source license from a source they trust (which would be Microsoft, of course). They don't perceive much overlap between their community of open source users and the traditional unix-centric open source users. Thus, they don't (currently) see much value to them in seeking OSI approval.
Seems only reasonable to me. The proper course of action seems to be practicing patience.
Actually, I don't remember asking Microsoft what they thought. Perhaps Bill Hilf is remembering something that didn't happen. According to TFA, he was pretty hazy about John Cowen's name.
Anyway, we certainly would have evaluated them had John not withdrew the approval request. Approval was just not the best of all possible courses of action, which is why we asked him to withdraw.
That's exactly what it was. John wanted to know if we would approve the licenses, because as far as he could see, they are approvable. Looks like it to me too, yet.... we'd prefer to have the steward submit the license hence my request that he withdraw them.
If someone else pops up and expresses interest, why sure, I'll buy them a copy of Economics in One Lesson. The only condition I impose is that the recipient read the whole book with an open mind. The offer remains open to you, too, even though I would be dubious of the sincerity of any such pledge on your part.
The simple truth is nearly anything can be a weapon when in a skilled hand,
Yup. I can't carry my wooden practice sword into the cabin, but I can bring my wooden cane. I know the cane form a lot better than the sword form right now, so if you're really looking to disarm me, take my cane away. Oh, you think I need that to walk with, so you won't do that. Oops.
Why should I compose a custom reply for you, when all your concerns have already been addressed in a book, which I am happy to purchase for you. You have already indicated that you wouldn't read the book (a condition of my purchase), so.... why should I waste my time "refuting" your points? If you won't honestly read the book, you won't honestly read my postings.
Clearly you are interested in remaining ignorant of economics. I have better things to do with my time than bringing horses to water which they have no plans to drink.
The problem wasn't that he missed the meetings. OSI has a policy that if you miss two meetings in a row without excuse, you can be removed from the board. You can MISS all the meetings you want, but you have to say why. SPI has a similar policy, and Bruce didn't follow it.
But more than that, Bruce made his election a referendum on changing SPI's role from organizing other projects to the role of an activist position against software patents. It's understandable that Bruce wants some place to stand to push his (our) agenda, but the SPI membership decided that the SPI board was not that place. I encouraged Bruce to start up a project underneath SPI, which advice he is yet to take.
Oh, yes, no question but that I'm a corporate tool. I suck up to Microsoft every day. Heck, I'm even wearing an Open Source Labs at Microsoft T-shirt (they were giving them away at OSCON)! I've taken the pledge, drunk the kool-aid.
Yeah I'm sure living conditions are real great for Vietnamese Nike workers,
They aren't. However, they don't live in a vacuum, where they can get $1/hour from all their other employers. Typically multinationals pay twice the prevailing wage. The alternatives tend to be dirtier, more dangerous, more illegal, or for the women, prostitution.
Anybody who thinks multinationals are abusing their workers[1] is painfully, embarassingly ignorant. Now do you see why I'm trying to educate you? I can't save the entire world.... but I can save you.
[1] RELATIVE TO THE WORKERS OTHER CHOICES. Perfection is not a possibility.
So... you're saying that if I was to take the exact same money I would spend on the book, and spend it on rice and beans for you, you would value those more? That should tell you that wealth is in fact NOT actual things, but is instead people's perception of them. Your own words belie themselves.
I had econ 101 in college and that was quite enough I assure you.
Ahhhh, I see! You have been filled full of stuff and nonsense. Good economics is nothing like what you learned. That's why I blog as The Angry Economist. My anger is at economists who teach bad economics badly. So now you go about rebelling against the nonsense you were taught. Well of course! You got crap and you didn't like it. Unsurprising. Would you like to start down the road of learning what is good economics?
So... do you pass up my offer to buy you an ENTIRE BOOK filled with refutations of your arguments? It's much cheaper for me to buy you a book than spend time teaching Yet Another person basic economics. Let me try teaching you just one thing, to see if there's any hope for you. The reason the economy can expand infinitely in a finite world is because people value things relative to other things. Let's say that I have a USB cable and want an Ethernet cable, and you have an Ethernet cable and want a USB cable. We swap. No new thing has been created. Finite number of atoms. Yet you are more wealthy because you assign a higher value to your new ownership of the USB cable. I am more wealthy because I assign a higher value to my Ethernet cable. We have expanded the economy. Each of us is richer (by a very small amount, of course) and no new atoms have been needed. You can repeat this process forever; the economy expands infinitely in a finite universe.
Ad-hominem is when I call you an asshole. I didn't do that, now did I? I said that your economics is astoundingly bad. Not you. Your economics. They're so badly put that they're beyond refutation. I mean, where do you start when somebody says that 2 + 2 = 5 ?
I just read through your post again to see if you got ANYTHING correct that I could agree with. Couldn't find anything. But that's good! It means that the rest of us can rely on you being wrong 100% of the time. Your precision is good even if your accuracy is nonexistent.
For example, the economy can expand infinitely while using a finite amount of materials. Why? Because value is relative. <---- you don't even understand economic results more than a century old. You gotta lotta reading to do to catch up. I suggest you start with _Economics in One Lesson_, by Henry Hazlitt. I would be more than pleased to purchase a copy for you. I only ask that you commit to reading it.
Wow. Your ignorance of economics is astounding. Perhaps you should learn about something before you criticize it? Oh, yes, there is a lot of bad economics being thrown around by people -- some of them with PhDs in economics. That doesn't mean that all economics is crap. It just means that YOUR economics is crap. Doesn't make mine crap.
Um, about your signature "Libertarians are really properly called propertyarians and when push comes to shove value material things over liberty." First, the term is "propertarians", and second, you reveal your ignorance. Libertarians value property rights because you need ownership of things to have freedom. On the most basic expression of the term "property rights", you own your own body. If you didn't, then somebody else would, and you would be their slave. The next most basic expression is that you own the food you eat. If you didn't, then you would be paying somebody else rent on the food that you eat and.... you wouldn't exactly be a slave, but you wouldn't be very free either. The next most basic expression is that you own anything you can trade your time for (that is to say, you own your own productive output). Again, without property rights, you have no freedom.
Do you perhaps now understand that propertarianism exists not to advance material values, but instead to advance liberty?
It's truly amazing that people are STILL misunderstanding the cause of the Horrible Depression (I can't bring myself to call it the Great Depression).
few would agree with your definition of the scope of government.
So? If some can be wrong, so can many. You don't vote on the nature of reality. Look at the popular opinion on the War on Drugs.
The proper solution, IMO, is to remove the incentives to sell legislation,
That's about as likely as removing the incentives to sell sex. Just not gonna happen. Better to remove their *ability* to sell legislation by preventing them from meddling in the marketplace. You can't sell something you don't own and can't control.
it would be far worse to have that power held in the hands of a few, rather than ultimately in the hands of the people
I agree! That's why I don't want legislators to have the ability to regulate the market. Better to leave markets free, and the power in the hands of the customers.
Slashdot Mirror
If esr was really irrelevant, you would not need to say so. You would not have bothered to reply. That you did says that you are propagandizing - saying things which are not true in the hope of making them true. Since we have established that you are willng to compromise your ideals in favor of a larger goal, please explain why it is wrong foe ESR to do so.
Don Giovanni made the same stupid mistake of assuming that we would play favorites. Should rip you a new asshole, too? Sheesh, what is with you people? From where comes the idea that we are biased towards one party or another? Is there any evidence of this? The Halloween Documents? Those were Microsoft behaving badly, and us pointing that out. So now that Microsoft is starting to release open source software (aka behaving nicely) somebody thinks we would treat them poorly? I'm like "What the fuck? Surely there's a LIMITED amount of stupidity in the world, why is there so much of it concentrated around this issue??"
I'm aghast. Really, I am. I hope you're blushing. Even if you have no intellectual prowess, at least you can feel badly about making such a world-class error.
Ahhhh, for the good old days of alt.flame.
My understanding is that Microsoft is interested in supporting their community of users with an open source license from a source they trust (which would be Microsoft, of course). They don't perceive much overlap between their community of open source users and the traditional unix-centric open source users. Thus, they don't (currently) see much value to them in seeking OSI approval.
Seems only reasonable to me. The proper course of action seems to be practicing patience.
Rather, they communicate privately with the author on the problems they have with the license and resubmissions and so-on.
Exactly.
Actually, I don't remember asking Microsoft what they thought. Perhaps Bill Hilf is remembering something that didn't happen. According to TFA, he was pretty hazy about John Cowen's name.
Anyway, we certainly would have evaluated them had John not withdrew the approval request. Approval was just not the best of all possible courses of action, which is why we asked him to withdraw.
Oh, oops, hi John.
Are you stupid or is this your best impression of a moron? Just curious.
That's exactly what it was. John wanted to know if we would approve the licenses, because as far as he could see, they are approvable. Looks like it to me too, yet .... we'd prefer to have the steward submit the license hence my request that he withdraw them.
If someone else pops up and expresses interest, why sure, I'll buy them a copy of Economics in One Lesson. The only condition I impose is that the recipient read the whole book with an open mind. The offer remains open to you, too, even though I would be dubious of the sincerity of any such pledge on your part.
The simple truth is nearly anything can be a weapon when in a skilled hand,
Yup. I can't carry my wooden practice sword into the cabin, but I can bring my wooden cane. I know the cane form a lot better than the sword form right now, so if you're really looking to disarm me, take my cane away. Oh, you think I need that to walk with, so you won't do that. Oops.
http://www.ruf.dk/
Yeah, a friend told us of her son deploying in an identical manner. No knives, but they were allowed to keep their guns.
Why should I compose a custom reply for you, when all your concerns have already been addressed in a book, which I am happy to purchase for you. You have already indicated that you wouldn't read the book (a condition of my purchase), so .... why should I waste my time "refuting" your points? If you won't honestly read the book, you won't honestly read my postings.
Clearly you are interested in remaining ignorant of economics. I have better things to do with my time than bringing horses to water which they have no plans to drink.
The problem wasn't that he missed the meetings. OSI has a policy that if you miss two meetings in a row without excuse, you can be removed from the board. You can MISS all the meetings you want, but you have to say why. SPI has a similar policy, and Bruce didn't follow it.
But more than that, Bruce made his election a referendum on changing SPI's role from organizing other projects to the role of an activist position against software patents. It's understandable that Bruce wants some place to stand to push his (our) agenda, but the SPI membership decided that the SPI board was not that place. I encouraged Bruce to start up a project underneath SPI, which advice he is yet to take.
Oh, yes, no question but that I'm a corporate tool. I suck up to Microsoft every day. Heck, I'm even wearing an Open Source Labs at Microsoft T-shirt (they were giving them away at OSCON)! I've taken the pledge, drunk the kool-aid.
Or maybe you're an idiot?
The parent depicts an accurate summary of what a number of people were saying.
Yeah I'm sure living conditions are real great for Vietnamese Nike workers,
.... but I can save you.
They aren't. However, they don't live in a vacuum, where they can get $1/hour from all their other employers. Typically multinationals pay twice the prevailing wage. The alternatives tend to be dirtier, more dangerous, more illegal, or for the women, prostitution.
Anybody who thinks multinationals are abusing their workers[1] is painfully, embarassingly ignorant. Now do you see why I'm trying to educate you? I can't save the entire world
[1] RELATIVE TO THE WORKERS OTHER CHOICES. Perfection is not a possibility.
So ... you're saying that if I was to take the exact same money I would spend on the book, and spend it on rice and beans for you, you would value those more? That should tell you that wealth is in fact NOT actual things, but is instead people's perception of them. Your own words belie themselves.
I had econ 101 in college and that was quite enough I assure you.
Ahhhh, I see! You have been filled full of stuff and nonsense. Good economics is nothing like what you learned. That's why I blog as The Angry Economist. My anger is at economists who teach bad economics badly. So now you go about rebelling against the nonsense you were taught. Well of course! You got crap and you didn't like it. Unsurprising. Would you like to start down the road of learning what is good economics?
Your infinite glass of water in an attempt to refute #1 in your previous response
... you said that, not me. Should I continue to argue with you, or just let you refute yourself?
Um
When you call me "dumbass" THAT is ad-hominem.
... do you pass up my offer to buy you an ENTIRE BOOK filled with refutations of your arguments? It's much cheaper for me to buy you a book than spend time teaching Yet Another person basic economics. Let me try teaching you just one thing, to see if there's any hope for you. The reason the economy can expand infinitely in a finite world is because people value things relative to other things. Let's say that I have a USB cable and want an Ethernet cable, and you have an Ethernet cable and want a USB cable. We swap. No new thing has been created. Finite number of atoms. Yet you are more wealthy because you assign a higher value to your new ownership of the USB cable. I am more wealthy because I assign a higher value to my Ethernet cable. We have expanded the economy. Each of us is richer (by a very small amount, of course) and no new atoms have been needed. You can repeat this process forever; the economy expands infinitely in a finite universe.
So
Ad-hominem is when I call you an asshole. I didn't do that, now did I? I said that your economics is astoundingly bad. Not you. Your economics. They're so badly put that they're beyond refutation. I mean, where do you start when somebody says that 2 + 2 = 5 ?
I just read through your post again to see if you got ANYTHING correct that I could agree with. Couldn't find anything. But that's good! It means that the rest of us can rely on you being wrong 100% of the time. Your precision is good even if your accuracy is nonexistent.
For example, the economy can expand infinitely while using a finite amount of materials. Why? Because value is relative. <---- you don't even understand economic results more than a century old. You gotta lotta reading to do to catch up. I suggest you start with _Economics in One Lesson_, by Henry Hazlitt. I would be more than pleased to purchase a copy for you. I only ask that you commit to reading it.
Wow. Your ignorance of economics is astounding. Perhaps you should learn about something before you criticize it? Oh, yes, there is a lot of bad economics being thrown around by people -- some of them with PhDs in economics. That doesn't mean that all economics is crap. It just means that YOUR economics is crap. Doesn't make mine crap.
Um, about your signature "Libertarians are really properly called propertyarians and when push comes to shove value material things over liberty." First, the term is "propertarians", and second, you reveal your ignorance. Libertarians value property rights because you need ownership of things to have freedom. On the most basic expression of the term "property rights", you own your own body. If you didn't, then somebody else would, and you would be their slave. The next most basic expression is that you own the food you eat. If you didn't, then you would be paying somebody else rent on the food that you eat and .... you wouldn't exactly be a slave, but you wouldn't be very free either. The next most basic expression is that you own anything you can trade your time for (that is to say, you own your own productive output). Again, without property rights, you have no freedom.
Do you perhaps now understand that propertarianism exists not to advance material values, but instead to advance liberty?
It's truly amazing that people are STILL misunderstanding the cause of the Horrible Depression (I can't bring myself to call it the Great Depression).
few would agree with your definition of the scope of government.
So? If some can be wrong, so can many. You don't vote on the nature of reality. Look at the popular opinion on the War on Drugs.
The proper solution, IMO, is to remove the incentives to sell legislation,
That's about as likely as removing the incentives to sell sex. Just not gonna happen. Better to remove their *ability* to sell legislation by preventing them from meddling in the marketplace. You can't sell something you don't own and can't control.
it would be far worse to have that power held in the hands of a few, rather than ultimately in the hands of the people
I agree! That's why I don't want legislators to have the ability to regulate the market. Better to leave markets free, and the power in the hands of the customers.