I'm not sure why you think I'm ignoring the message because of who the messenger is. I thought I was clear that I substantially accept and agree with the message, which is why I think it needs a better messenger. Because meassengers do matter.
If one is trying to convince Vulcans of truths about physical law, no doubt the tone and approach of the messenger are irrelevant, but:
A) RMS is trying to convince humans. Even if we should ignore everything but the strict informational content of the message, we don't.
B) Software licensing ethics is not Physics. For people to accept RMSs conclusions, they must consider his premises and arguments. None of this is reproducible experimental data linked by deductive reasoning. People are convinced to agree with ethical principles because you show them that these principles are the natural outgrowths of their own sense of what is just. If you start off insisting they accept your dictate for the definition of "Freedom", that conversation isn't going to go very far.
So you're saying it seems less patronizing if we assume "Linus doesn't believe in Freedom" is an attempt to express an inarguable objective truth about the physical nature of the universe?
I mean, I made the analogy to Jehovah's Witnesses as a bit of hyperbole. I specifically referenced his opinions as "principles". I certainly didn't mean to accuse him of actual theology. Leave it to a supporter I guess.
"Those who understand this have the duty to try to point out the consequences to others."
It's the first day of junior-high set theory... and you fail.
"It is possible to have an Open Source package that is not also a Free Software package."
So there are elements of the set "Open Source software packages" that are not members of the set "Free software packages". So "Open Source software packages" cannot be a subset of "Free Software packages"
"The reverse -- Free Software that is not also Open Source -- is not possible."
Right. There is no member of the set "Free Software packages" that is not a member of the set "Open Source packages". Which is the definition of "subset".
"If you want to pick nits, Open Source is therefore a subset of the properties of Free Software.
Considered more broadly, the two sets do intersect, but neither is a proper subset of the other."
A is a proper subset of B means: For all x in A, x is in B. There exists a y in B such that y is not in A.
It doesn't matter if you want to pick nits or consider things broadly; Free Software is a proper subset of Open Source software, according to any reasonable definitions of the terms, apparently including yours. I'm still not sure why that would be bad.
"He also frequently comes across as patronizing in the way he states his beliefs as if they are Truth."
You mean when he takes his own set of principles regarding whose freedoms deserve protection by what mechanisms and insists on referring to this collection of ideas as "Freedom"? Yeah, that whole ultimate-arbiter-of-morality-with-respect-to-software thing is perhaps slightly patronizing.
"I respect him, even though he's maddening sometimes."
I don't respect him; his cause deserves a better advocate. I actually know what the collection of principles he's advancing are; I substantially agree with much of them, and am probably persuadable on some more. But he won't persuade me, because I won't listen to him, or those who talk like him. If I wanted that, I'd invite the Jehovah's Witnesses in for tea.
"There is unfortunately a tendency on the Open Source side to obscure this difference by claiming that Free Software is a subset of Open Source, often through the use of equivocation with the ambiguous English word "free", but
"Free" has several meanings in English, and one highly specific one when RMS uses it. To be clear, his is a perfectly reasonable, principle-based meaning, and I have no objection to it. But it's not the only principled, reasonable definition of free (even 'as in speech') with respect to software.
"Free Software is not a subset of Open Source."
Using whatever definition of "Free Software" you like, what "Free Software" project is not Open Source? Of course it's a subset. Open Source advocates who say Free Software is a subset of open source doesn't mean it's inferior. They are pointing out that Free Software fulfills all the requirements they care about, and that it has more requirements, and they don't care about those. That last may be infuriating to Free Software fans, but it doesn't make it false.
What provisions of
the bill in question are you referring to? I see no provision requiring any list accessible to the FBI. It has to tell the user what it is going to share at install time.
The bill is 7 pages, and the portion worth reading is 2. Double spaced, with huge margins.
You've probably read more text of comments on this story than there is text in the bill.
Being annoyed when legislators propose weasily laws is reasonable. Assuming laws are weasily may be understandable. But it's dumb to rant on about how weasily a particular law is without making any attempt to determine if it is true.
I've read the bill. I don't see the evil. It just sounds like an obviously good idea: programs that are going to share your files must inform you what they are going to share at install time, and must not prevent you from stopping sharing and uninstalling them.
"I'm going to take a wild guess that you get more out of reading a month's worth of books than you do out of playing a month's worth of WoW."
Why? Because reading literature is inherently respectable, while video games are inherently a waste of time? What are you getting out of either activity besides enjoyment?
You're sitting in a room by yourself, consuming the creative output of somebody else. I'm sure you think it makes you more interesting and better than someone doing the same while also interacting with other people, but I don't see why.
"I wonder if certain telecoms who cooperated received more government business or favorable consideration in new contract negotiations or renewals? Where there pay-offs for loyalty and cooperation?"
Exactly that is alleged. Cooperation, possibly in response to bribes, with government agents who are breaking the law... I will not call it "loyalty".
"Qwest, also notably, was punished for their refusal.."
Quest didn't get certain lucrative contracts because of their refusal, according to their felonious ex-CEO. In any case, I'd put it: The cooperators were bribed. Which still doesn't increase my sympathy for them.
If someone demands they break the law at gun point, call the cops. Since that's not the case here,
If the government says "Give us this thing the law specifically requires you to demand a court order for", you should... demand a court order. If they say, "Give it to us without a court order, or we'll shut you down", ask how they intend to shut down a major telecom without a court order. Try not to giggle.
Nobody in their right mind thought the alternative was "being forced to close" Notably, Qwest didn't. They seemed to have mastered the phrase "No, that's illegal."
They were legally required to not allow these wiretaps without a court order. This requirement was supposed to hold even if the government asked them to do it. This requirement was supposed to hold particularly, specifically, and exactly if the government asked. That's the whole point of the law: The government isn't allowed to ask for this, so don't give it to them.
Cooperation with the government is not the highest duty of citizens or corporations. Nor is it an affirmative defense to any criminal act.
An ex-post-facto law makes something illegal after it has happened.
Which really makes sense: If something was legal, passing a law making it retroactively illegal, and prosecuting people for things that were perfectly legal when they did them is obviously unjust, pretty much no matter what.
Passing a law making something legal, and/or forbidding prosecution of people who did that thing in the past, even though it was illegal might be a shabby cover-up. But it might be an obviously good thing; for example, not prosecuting fugitive slaves after the Civil War.
In this case, the immunity grant and immunity revocation determine whether the Government can prosecute them, now, for what they did then. Neither affect whether what they did was legal or illegal then; neither is ex post facto.
All flights have been Orange since August 10, 2006. The suspects in the plot that caused it to be raised to orange have been apprehended, tried for non-terrorism crimes, tried for terrorist plotting (hung jury), and retried (convicted). The alert level has remained unchanged.
You should not be any more alert than normal, because Orange is normal. You can remain "alert" (for what?) if you like, but it's silly to say you should do anything different because of an alert level that isn't ever different.
"We're not talking about the bionics of the photographer, we're talking about the difference between going there yourself or viewing it through a tv screen"
No we're not, and that's my point. I'm not going, and neither are you. We're watching it on a TV screen, no matter how the footage is gathered. So to heck with the "difference of his experience"; I don't care if he gets as neato ride, he can pay for that himself. If I'm paying I want to know that using him as my remote agent is more cost effective than using a robotic probe.
If you want to try to convince me of that, I'll try to stop laughing long enough to read it. But you're already saying things like:
"If you can tell me with a straight face that we have one-hundredth the tech gained today from sending a robot to Mars that we would have had from sending a man to Mars, I'll agree with you"
Yeah, now tell me with a straight face we've learned thousands of times as much with human space flight so far as with remote probes, because that's the cost differential. Sending a probe and sending a human are not comparable actions, the costs are on entirely different scales.
I understand. You want to imagine yourself the protagonist of a sci-fi space opera. I like to do that too. It's a stupid way to plan public policy.
In principle, I'd agree with that except I'd strike the word "athletic".
In practice, when the gym teacher writes down how many pull-ups a kid can do on his clipboard (or their resting heart rate), anyone asking for his data-retention policies is, on some level, an idiot.
You could elevate your concern and inquire with the district superintendent about student privacy and data retention policies in general and the steps taken to assure they are adhered to. This will answer your concerns about the gym class in any case, and possibly have some general relevance to worthwhile issues for your child and others.
Or you could realize nobody inappropriate will ever care what your kids resting heart rate in fifth grade was, and that a year or two hence they'll be able to get more information about their health in one glance at them than by knowing that.
So being more concerned seems reasonable, being less concerned seems reasonable. Being concerned specifically about heart rate data if you didn't already make inquiries about the vast slew of other physical and academic a data a school obviously must collect to do their job? I can't see it.
Recording your childs heart rate isn't much different than recording how many pull-ups they can do or how fast they can run; it's another, maybe slightly better measure of their physical fitness.
Which could in some sense be considered "medical data, captured in a non-medical context", and seems like fine fodder for hypothetical discussions of what constitutes private data, etc.
But are you really concerned if the gym teacher writes stuff like that down? Would you suggest people not allow pull-up counting be used on their child until they receive written assurances?
And it almost certainly won't be tied to individual kids anyway. It takes a more expensive strap than they'll have you buy to have two work in close proximity, and in any case the transmit range is feet. They'll probably pass around one non-logging receiver. The only reason to have them buy their own strap is the sanitary issue. I wonder if they'll bother with the recommended conductive gel nobody actually uses? I can just picture being the gym teacher trying to deal with the social issues of getting a 5th grade class to go for the actual standard procedure: "Now everybody lick the strap and slap it on your chest quick before the spit dries."
"Robots are nice, but a scientist on the ground for five minutes may well have gotten more done then everything the mars rovers have done since they arrived (well, spotting the evidence of moving water might not have happened since it required time, but that was just pure luck anyway). It would cost more, yes... but it really does get more done, and also inspires the public more then just pictures. Which means more money to do science with."
Tell the astronauts to get off their asses then. The humans exploring mars using robotic probes are kicking their asses with a tiny fraction of the funding, and, according to you, a less effective approach.
"It's worse than saying 'I never need to visit Paris, because there are human beings who have already visited it. I have no need to dive the Great Barrier Reef, because I can watch videos of it on Youtube. In fact, there's no point for ANYONE to go, since we've got footage of it."
I would love to go to Paris; I have little interest in paying for someone else to go to Paris. I would love see the Great Barrier Reef, but scar tissue in my ears means I'll never dive again. I've watched videos of the reef; they are not as good as being there, but worth watching. It has never occurred to me I'd want to be sure those videos were made by a hand held camera, not one mounted on an unmanned submersible. I certainly can't see why I'd pay hundreds of times as much for the DVD on that basis.
"The two robots currently on Mars have so far done about 2 days work for an actual human geologist on site."
What actual geologist on site are you refering to? In any case, the robots haven't done squat. Actual human geologists here on Earth have used some very clever tools to learn quite a bit.
You seem to think having a human doing the work the geologists are using robots to do would be better, because he'd be more capable, and you discount the difficulty of getting him there and keeping him alive. If the geologists wanted to explore the NASA parking lot, you'd be right. But since we're talking about Mars, and getting there and staying operational are the entire thing that makes it an interesting problem, ignoring those is stupid.
Human space flight has orders of magnitude more funding than telerobotic exploration. Telerobotic exploration has learned everything we know about Mars that telescopes didn't. Human spaceflight is skimming the atmosphere in LEO, trying to keep their toilet working.
Except that was unusual; heck I was an unusual teenager who knew how to run a c64 game.
At age 3 my son toddled over and asked if he could print the picture he drew on my wifes laptop. I, surprised, said I'd help him in a minute. He said, no, just move out of the way so I can turn the printer on...
He's not unusual. Every 5 year old I know (which is many) can get from turning a computer on to the web site of their favorite cartoon charachter. Unless the point is waiting for their hands to grow, typing should be taught in grade school.
Only kinda joking. I would just yell profanity at them.
Note that the GP and I said "bike lane", not "path". The paths around here actually say "No motor vehicles", so I'd object to them on that ground, but not the speed. Pedestrians, etc, are expected, and welcome if they keep to the right.
In the on-street bike lane, motorization is probably legal, but it's certainly against the spirit. Going 12 means I have to go around you, which is fine near stopped cars, less so near ones doing 45. For the rare slow cyclist who rides in such places, I'll deal. But those who use a motor should not be so slow as to to obstruct the passage of their betters. (ha, ha, only serious)
The real problem with this puppy is any compelling reason for it, and the inability to stop if you like your face. Not being able to go up a curb prevents riding it in all environments that a 13 mph top speed doesn't.
There are several kits in the ballpark of the specs you specify, for less than half that cost. (e.g. http://www.usaelectricbike.com/). They are not terribly popular.
People who are not willing to pedal generally have cars. For people willing to pedal, a regular bicycle is highly competent.
Batteries are heavy, and for bikes, weight is the enemy. If you add enough batteries to give you a meaningful boost, you no longer have a nice bike you want to power by pedaling. If you add enough more batteries to go faster than a bike (for short distances) you really don't want to bother pedaling, and you have a moped.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure why you think I'm ignoring the message because of who the messenger is. I thought I was clear that I substantially accept and agree with the message, which is why I think it needs a better messenger. Because meassengers do matter.
If one is trying to convince Vulcans of truths about physical law, no doubt the tone and approach of the messenger are irrelevant, but:
A) RMS is trying to convince humans. Even if we should ignore everything but the strict informational content of the message, we don't.
B) Software licensing ethics is not Physics. For people to accept RMSs conclusions, they must consider his premises and arguments. None of this is reproducible experimental data linked by deductive reasoning. People are convinced to agree with ethical principles because you show them that these principles are the natural outgrowths of their own sense of what is just. If you start off insisting they accept your dictate for the definition of "Freedom", that conversation isn't going to go very far.
So you're saying it seems less patronizing if we assume "Linus doesn't believe in Freedom" is an attempt to express an inarguable objective truth about the physical nature of the universe?
I mean, I made the analogy to Jehovah's Witnesses as a bit of hyperbole. I specifically referenced his opinions as "principles". I certainly didn't mean to accuse him of actual theology. Leave it to a supporter I guess.
"Those who understand this have the duty to try to point out the consequences to others."
Yup, that's why the Witnesses ring the doorbell.
"Okay, this is basic set theory"
It's the first day of junior-high set theory... and you fail.
"It is possible to have an Open Source package that is not also a Free Software package."
So there are elements of the set "Open Source software packages" that are not members of the set "Free software packages". So "Open Source software packages" cannot be a subset of "Free Software packages"
"The reverse -- Free Software that is not also Open Source -- is not possible."
Right. There is no member of the set "Free Software packages" that is not a member of the set "Open Source packages". Which is the definition of "subset".
"If you want to pick nits, Open Source is therefore a subset of the properties of Free Software.
Considered more broadly, the two sets do intersect, but neither is a proper subset of the other."
A is a proper subset of B means:
For all x in A, x is in B.
There exists a y in B such that y is not in A.
It doesn't matter if you want to pick nits or consider things broadly; Free Software is a proper subset of Open Source software, according to any reasonable definitions of the terms, apparently including yours. I'm still not sure why that would be bad.
"He also frequently comes across as patronizing in the way he states his beliefs as if they are Truth."
You mean when he takes his own set of principles regarding whose freedoms deserve protection by what mechanisms and insists on referring to this collection of ideas as "Freedom"? Yeah, that whole ultimate-arbiter-of-morality-with-respect-to-software thing is perhaps slightly patronizing.
"I respect him, even though he's maddening sometimes."
I don't respect him; his cause deserves a better advocate. I actually know what the collection of principles he's advancing are; I substantially agree with much of them, and am probably persuadable on some more. But he won't persuade me, because I won't listen to him, or those who talk like him. If I wanted that, I'd invite the Jehovah's Witnesses in for tea.
"There is unfortunately a tendency on the Open Source side to obscure this difference by claiming that Free Software is a subset of Open Source, often through the use of equivocation with the ambiguous English word "free", but
"Free" has several meanings in English, and one highly specific one when RMS uses it. To be clear, his is a perfectly reasonable, principle-based meaning, and I have no objection to it. But it's not the only principled, reasonable definition of free (even 'as in speech') with respect to software.
"Free Software is not a subset of Open Source."
Using whatever definition of "Free Software" you like, what "Free Software" project is not Open Source? Of course it's a subset. Open Source advocates who say Free Software is a subset of open source doesn't mean it's inferior. They are pointing out that Free Software fulfills all the requirements they care about, and that it has more requirements, and they don't care about those. That last may be infuriating to Free Software fans, but it doesn't make it false.
The bill is 7 pages, and the portion worth reading is 2. Double spaced, with huge margins. You've probably read more text of comments on this story than there is text in the bill.
Being annoyed when legislators propose weasily laws is reasonable. Assuming laws are weasily may be understandable. But it's dumb to rant on about how weasily a particular law is without making any attempt to determine if it is true.
I've read the bill. I don't see the evil. It just sounds like an obviously good idea: programs that are going to share your files must inform you what they are going to share at install time, and must not prevent you from stopping sharing and uninstalling them.
"I'm going to take a wild guess that you get more out of reading a month's worth of books than you do out of playing a month's worth of WoW."
Why? Because reading literature is inherently respectable, while video games are inherently a waste of time? What are you getting out of either activity besides enjoyment?
You're sitting in a room by yourself, consuming the creative output of somebody else. I'm sure you think it makes you more interesting and better than someone doing the same while also interacting with other people, but I don't see why.
"I wonder if certain telecoms who cooperated received more government business or favorable consideration in new contract negotiations or renewals? Where there pay-offs for loyalty and cooperation?"
Exactly that is alleged. Cooperation, possibly in response to bribes, with government agents who are breaking the law... I will not call it "loyalty".
"Qwest, also notably, was punished for their refusal.."
Quest didn't get certain lucrative contracts because of their refusal, according to their felonious ex-CEO. In any case, I'd put it: The cooperators were bribed. Which still doesn't increase my sympathy for them.
If someone demands they break the law at gun point, call the cops. Since that's not the case here,
If the government says "Give us this thing the law specifically requires you to demand a court order for", you should... demand a court order.
If they say, "Give it to us without a court order, or we'll shut you down", ask how they intend to shut down a major telecom without a court order. Try not to giggle.
Nobody in their right mind thought the alternative was "being forced to close" Notably, Qwest didn't. They seemed to have mastered the phrase "No, that's illegal."
They were legally required to not allow these wiretaps without a court order. This requirement was supposed to hold even if the government asked them to do it. This requirement was supposed to hold particularly, specifically, and exactly if the government asked. That's the whole point of the law: The government isn't allowed to ask for this, so don't give it to them.
Cooperation with the government is not the highest duty of citizens or corporations. Nor is it an affirmative defense to any criminal act.
An ex-post-facto law makes something illegal after it has happened.
Which really makes sense: If something was legal, passing a law making it retroactively illegal, and prosecuting people for things that were perfectly legal when they did them is obviously unjust, pretty much no matter what.
Passing a law making something legal, and/or forbidding prosecution of people who did that thing in the past, even though it was illegal might be a shabby cover-up. But it might be an obviously good thing; for example, not prosecuting fugitive slaves after the Civil War.
In this case, the immunity grant and immunity revocation determine whether the Government can prosecute them, now, for what they did then. Neither affect whether what they did was legal or illegal then; neither is ex post facto.
You've flown once in the last three years then?
All flights have been Orange since August 10, 2006. The suspects in the plot that caused it to be raised to orange have been apprehended, tried for non-terrorism crimes, tried for terrorist plotting (hung jury), and retried (convicted). The alert level has remained unchanged.
You should not be any more alert than normal, because Orange is normal. You can remain "alert" (for what?) if you like, but it's silly to say you should do anything different because of an alert level that isn't ever different.
"We're not talking about the bionics of the photographer, we're talking about the difference between going there yourself or viewing it through a tv screen"
No we're not, and that's my point. I'm not going, and neither are you. We're watching it on a TV screen, no matter how the footage is gathered. So to heck with the "difference of his experience"; I don't care if he gets as neato ride, he can pay for that himself. If I'm paying I want to know that using him as my remote agent is more cost effective than using a robotic probe.
If you want to try to convince me of that, I'll try to stop laughing long enough to read it. But you're already saying things like:
"If you can tell me with a straight face that we have one-hundredth the tech gained today from sending a robot to Mars that we would have had from sending a man to Mars, I'll agree with you"
Yeah, now tell me with a straight face we've learned thousands of times as much with human space flight so far as with remote probes, because that's the cost differential. Sending a probe and sending a human are not comparable actions, the costs are on entirely different scales.
I understand. You want to imagine yourself the protagonist of a sci-fi space opera. I like to do that too. It's a stupid way to plan public policy.
In principle, I'd agree with that except I'd strike the word "athletic".
In practice, when the gym teacher writes down how many pull-ups a kid can do on his clipboard (or their resting heart rate), anyone asking for his data-retention policies is, on some level, an idiot.
You could elevate your concern and inquire with the district superintendent about student privacy and data retention policies in general and the steps taken to assure they are adhered to. This will answer your concerns about the gym class in any case, and possibly have some general relevance to worthwhile issues for your child and others.
Or you could realize nobody inappropriate will ever care what your kids resting heart rate in fifth grade was, and that a year or two hence they'll be able to get more information about their health in one glance at them than by knowing that.
So being more concerned seems reasonable, being less concerned seems reasonable. Being concerned specifically about heart rate data if you didn't already make inquiries about the vast slew of other physical and academic a data a school obviously must collect to do their job? I can't see it.
Recording your childs heart rate isn't much different than recording how many pull-ups they can do or how fast they can run; it's another, maybe slightly better measure of their physical fitness.
Which could in some sense be considered "medical data, captured in a non-medical context", and seems like fine fodder for hypothetical discussions of what constitutes private data, etc.
But are you really concerned if the gym teacher writes stuff like that down? Would you suggest people not allow pull-up counting be used on their child until they receive written assurances?
Does HIPAA come in to play when they track how fast you can do the 50 yard dash?
It's middle school gym class.
And it almost certainly won't be tied to individual kids anyway. It takes a more expensive strap than they'll have you buy to have two work in close proximity, and in any case the transmit range is feet. They'll probably pass around one non-logging receiver. The only reason to have them buy their own strap is the sanitary issue. I wonder if they'll bother with the recommended conductive gel nobody actually uses? I can just picture being the gym teacher trying to deal with the social issues of getting a 5th grade class to go for the actual standard procedure: "Now everybody lick the strap and slap it on your chest quick before the spit dries."
"Robots are nice, but a scientist on the ground for five minutes may well have gotten more done then everything the mars rovers have done since they arrived (well, spotting the evidence of moving water might not have happened since it required time, but that was just pure luck anyway). It would cost more, yes... but it really does get more done, and also inspires the public more then just pictures. Which means more money to do science with."
Tell the astronauts to get off their asses then. The humans exploring mars using robotic probes are kicking their asses with a tiny fraction of the funding, and, according to you, a less effective approach.
"It's worse than saying 'I never need to visit Paris, because there are human beings who have already visited it. I have no need to dive the Great Barrier Reef, because I can watch videos of it on Youtube. In fact, there's no point for ANYONE to go, since we've got footage of it."
I would love to go to Paris; I have little interest in paying for someone else to go to Paris. I would love see the Great Barrier Reef, but scar tissue in my ears means I'll never dive again. I've watched videos of the reef; they are not as good as being there, but worth watching. It has never occurred to me I'd want to be sure those videos were made by a hand held camera, not one mounted on an unmanned submersible. I certainly can't see why I'd pay hundreds of times as much for the DVD on that basis.
"The two robots currently on Mars have so far done about 2 days work for an actual human geologist on site."
What actual geologist on site are you refering to? In any case, the robots haven't done squat. Actual human geologists here on Earth have used some very clever tools to learn quite a bit.
You seem to think having a human doing the work the geologists are using robots to do would be better, because he'd be more capable, and you discount the difficulty of getting him there and keeping him alive. If the geologists wanted to explore the NASA parking lot, you'd be right. But since we're talking about Mars, and getting there and staying operational are the entire thing that makes it an interesting problem, ignoring those is stupid.
Human space flight has orders of magnitude more funding than telerobotic exploration. Telerobotic exploration has learned everything we know about Mars that telescopes didn't. Human spaceflight is skimming the atmosphere in LEO, trying to keep their toilet working.
"Making oxygen, potable water and methane fuel from lunar ice..."
So, when anybody discovers any lunar ice, I'll tell you the next thing wrong with your plan.
Except that was unusual; heck I was an unusual teenager who knew how to run a c64 game.
At age 3 my son toddled over and asked if he could print the picture he drew on my wifes laptop. I, surprised, said I'd help him in a minute. He said, no, just move out of the way so I can turn the printer on...
He's not unusual. Every 5 year old I know (which is many) can get from turning a computer on to the web site of their favorite cartoon charachter. Unless the point is waiting for their hands to grow, typing should be taught in grade school.
Only kinda joking. I would just yell profanity at them.
Note that the GP and I said "bike lane", not "path". The paths around here actually say "No motor vehicles", so I'd object to them on that ground, but not the speed. Pedestrians, etc, are expected, and welcome if they keep to the right.
In the on-street bike lane, motorization is probably legal, but it's certainly against the spirit. Going 12 means I have to go around you, which is fine near stopped cars, less so near ones doing 45. For the rare slow cyclist who rides in such places, I'll deal. But those who use a motor should not be so slow as to to obstruct the passage of their betters. (ha, ha, only serious)
The real problem with this puppy is any compelling reason for it, and the inability to stop if you like your face. Not being able to go up a curb prevents riding it in all environments that a 13 mph top speed doesn't.
There are several kits in the ballpark of the specs you specify, for less than half that cost. (e.g. http://www.usaelectricbike.com/). They are not terribly popular.
People who are not willing to pedal generally have cars. For people willing to pedal, a regular bicycle is highly competent.
Batteries are heavy, and for bikes, weight is the enemy. If you add enough batteries to give you a meaningful boost, you no longer have a nice bike you want to power by pedaling. If you add enough more batteries to go faster than a bike (for short distances) you really don't want to bother pedaling, and you have a moped.
Your friends don't bike, and if they don't bike, well, then they're no friends of mine.
Well, OK, they might be, but I can definitely leave them behind.