You have your interpretation, and I have mine. I saw no such "fallacious" assertion on the part of the interviewer, and I think Stallman's dismissal of a (IMHO) reasonable, pertinent question spoke volumes of his opinion of paid developers.
If that were true, he would be content to let like-minded programmers/hobbyists produce and distribute code however they want. His crusade against commercial software suggests otherwise.
When he says (without the careful wordsmithing) that developers shouldn't be paid, and that they should just either be independently wealthy or find other means of supporting themselves, he demonstrates an almost willful disconnection with/disdain for many of the very people who praise his efforts.
If you are a paid programmer, RMS is not your friend.
RMS: "First of all there are many people who don't have to make money. Importantly even if a person has to make a living, he doesn't have to make a living from everything he does."
In other words, software developers aught not be paid for their efforts; it should be something they freely contribute to some global software collective. Software developers should instead find another way to make a living.
It has never been more clear to me that Stallman has zero perspective on the average working human being.
You're confusing "quality" with "taste". Beauty is, afterall, in the eye of the beholder.
That's where your argument that people will be willing to pay for "good" music and continue to pirate "bad" music falls short.
Lots of people are just cheap and/or feel entitled.
Re:"Generation Steal"
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Which "free" are you talking about, beer or speech?
When it comes to the likes of online distribution of music and movies, chances are you're really talking about the former. That's not activism, that's being cheap.
That all may be true, but it's also not the technology's fault. That's asshat company policies combined with asshat patent law. The technology is what it is; great potential.
...what the problem is with technology that can produce vast amounts of nutritious food that can feed people who may otherwise not have access to such a resoruce?
Your fantasy that artists should be forced to share their creativity with the rest of the world without compensation for their efforts is every bit as romantic as the grandparent. And by "romantic" I mean nauseating.
"Every artist draws something from the work of others; no one grows up in a vacuum."
Everything ANYONE does draws something from the work of others. Does that mean that NOBODY is entitled to compensation for ANYTHING?
Cue the numerous "If you don't trust your teenage child implicitly, you have failed as a parent." analyses from people who don't have teenage children or are themselves teenagers.
So if you told me that crack cocaine is bad, would you be disappointed if I didn't go out today and smoke it up? Would you feel I made a bad decision?
Believe it or not, sometimes parents say 'no' to their kids for a good reason. Setting reasonable limits is at the core of good parenting. The kind of kids that come out of households with no limits and overindulgent parents are, well, predictable.
"Fast food chains get it, why can't the people who make healthy food understand this simple fact and start preparing meals the way kids would actually like them."
Because healthy foods aren't engineered in a chemistry lab.
I hear this ridiculous "forbidden fruit" argument all the time around here.
When Parent forbids Child from doing X, Child is much more tempted to do X, and ultimately does so precisely because they have been told not to.
I'm not a parent, so I don't know what kind of assclownery is going on in parenting these days, but once upon a time kids actually listened to and respected their parents. Sure, it does happen, but by and large if a kid is raised correctly, they will respect the (reasonable) limits that have been placed upon them. When we tell kids that smoking is bad, they don't all run out and light up to spite their oppressive parents.
What responsibility, praytell, are parents abdicating with such a system? Were they previously expected to come to school and make sure Billy ate his vegetables?
I just finished reading it for the first time last night. If you think Orwell was only railing against Soviet communism, you missed half of the book's point.
1984 is about government power and tyrany. Orwell's message was that it could happen to ANY kind of government that seeks to consolidate power. I think we can all agree that such a concept is hardly limited to communist governments.
Slashdot Mirror
Stallman has said EXACTLY that.
From http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484...
You have your interpretation, and I have mine. I saw no such "fallacious" assertion on the part of the interviewer, and I think Stallman's dismissal of a (IMHO) reasonable, pertinent question spoke volumes of his opinion of paid developers.
If that were true, he would be content to let like-minded programmers/hobbyists produce and distribute code however they want. His crusade against commercial software suggests otherwise.
RMS: "I want to ask you why that question is worth asking."
In other words, "Why should anyone considering FS be concerned about money?" Afterall, "there are many people who don't have to make money."
Sure, he didn't come out and say that developers shouldn't be paid, but his angle on that is (to me at least) crystal clear.
When he says (without the careful wordsmithing) that developers shouldn't be paid, and that they should just either be independently wealthy or find other means of supporting themselves, he demonstrates an almost willful disconnection with/disdain for many of the very people who praise his efforts.
If you are a paid programmer, RMS is not your friend.
RMS: "First of all there are many people who don't have to make money. Importantly even if a person has to make a living, he doesn't have to make a living from everything he does."
In other words, software developers aught not be paid for their efforts; it should be something they freely contribute to some global software collective. Software developers should instead find another way to make a living.
It has never been more clear to me that Stallman has zero perspective on the average working human being.
People are free to contribute lies under a banner of truth. That's the very nature of Wiki, for better or worse.
You're confusing "quality" with "taste". Beauty is, afterall, in the eye of the beholder.
That's where your argument that people will be willing to pay for "good" music and continue to pirate "bad" music falls short.
Lots of people are just cheap and/or feel entitled.
Which "free" are you talking about, beer or speech?
When it comes to the likes of online distribution of music and movies, chances are you're really talking about the former. That's not activism, that's being cheap.
"I do not have expendable income, but I want to see this thing."
You misspelled "have". Big difference.
That all may be true, but it's also not the technology's fault. That's asshat company policies combined with asshat patent law. The technology is what it is; great potential.
And in the meantime we continue to poison existing crops with chemical fertilizers and pesticides. That doesn't make me feel any safer.
...what the problem is with technology that can produce vast amounts of nutritious food that can feed people who may otherwise not have access to such a resoruce?
Your fantasy that artists should be forced to share their creativity with the rest of the world without compensation for their efforts is every bit as romantic as the grandparent. And by "romantic" I mean nauseating.
"Every artist draws something from the work of others; no one grows up in a vacuum."
Everything ANYONE does draws something from the work of others. Does that mean that NOBODY is entitled to compensation for ANYTHING?
So which right, online or otherwise, is being violated here? The right for defendants to destroy incriminating evidence?
Cue the numerous "If you don't trust your teenage child implicitly, you have failed as a parent." analyses from people who don't have teenage children or are themselves teenagers.
So if you told me that crack cocaine is bad, would you be disappointed if I didn't go out today and smoke it up? Would you feel I made a bad decision?
Believe it or not, sometimes parents say 'no' to their kids for a good reason. Setting reasonable limits is at the core of good parenting. The kind of kids that come out of households with no limits and overindulgent parents are, well, predictable.
"Fast food chains get it, why can't the people who make healthy food understand this simple fact and start preparing meals the way kids would actually like them."
Because healthy foods aren't engineered in a chemistry lab.
"I'm sorry, it is NOT up to the lunch lady to determine what my kids eat."
Ummm... in this system the lunch lady doesn't decide what the child eats. The parents do. Maybe you missed that.
Indeed, one never fails at anything in life if he never tries in the first place.
I hear this ridiculous "forbidden fruit" argument all the time around here.
When Parent forbids Child from doing X, Child is much more tempted to do X, and ultimately does so precisely because they have been told not to.
I'm not a parent, so I don't know what kind of assclownery is going on in parenting these days, but once upon a time kids actually listened to and respected their parents. Sure, it does happen, but by and large if a kid is raised correctly, they will respect the (reasonable) limits that have been placed upon them. When we tell kids that smoking is bad, they don't all run out and light up to spite their oppressive parents.
What responsibility, praytell, are parents abdicating with such a system? Were they previously expected to come to school and make sure Billy ate his vegetables?
I just finished reading it for the first time last night. If you think Orwell was only railing against Soviet communism, you missed half of the book's point.
1984 is about government power and tyrany. Orwell's message was that it could happen to ANY kind of government that seeks to consolidate power. I think we can all agree that such a concept is hardly limited to communist governments.
Right, because only Republicans want to restrict YRO.