I'd certainly like to know where the FSF gets its moral absolutes from. If I say that non-free software is amoral, what gives FSF the authority to say that I'm wrong? Does the FSF believe in God? Do they believe moral absolutes can be created in a vacuum?
amoral Pronunciation Key (-môrl, -mr-)
adj.
1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
They are not claiming any such moral absolutes. They are certainly not claiming that non-free softare is immoral
They are merely claiming that non-free software is making a statement about practicality, and is itself unconcered with moral judgements.
So his argument appears to be, "Gosh, I was providing a chip that allowed people to use pirated software but I had no idea that was illegal."
Actually it seems to be one better: "Gosh, I was providing a chip that allowed people to use the pirated software that I'm selling but I had no idea that was illegal."
It would also be bad because people would be less likely to get hooked into new shows (thus, Hollywood shudders) since they would not be surfing or seeing the ads.
Tivo at least has a feature that uses some sort of collaborative filtering to recommend shows for you to watch (by recording them without your instructions and displaying them on the bottom of your list). That is one potential method for new shows to be disseminated.
Also, how long will it be before spots on that "automatically recorded" list are sold to networks on a highly customized basis. They could target very specific audiences with that and get their message out that way.
Take a look at http://www.citysoft.com/. They've been around for a couple of years and do similar things for Boston, NY, and Baltimore. The interesting thing here is that they try and do it for profit, rather than pure charity.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
They are not claiming any such moral absolutes. They are certainly not claiming that non-free softare is immoral
They are merely claiming that non-free software is making a statement about practicality, and is itself unconcered with moral judgements.
Actually it seems to be one better:
"Gosh, I was providing a chip that allowed people to use the pirated software that I'm selling but I had no idea that was illegal."
Tivo at least has a feature that uses some sort of collaborative filtering to recommend shows for you to watch (by recording them without your instructions and displaying them on the bottom of your list). That is one potential method for new shows to be disseminated.
Also, how long will it be before spots on that "automatically recorded" list are sold to networks on a highly customized basis. They could target very specific audiences with that and get their message out that way.
Take a look at http://www.citysoft.com/. They've been around for a couple of years and do similar things for Boston, NY, and Baltimore. The interesting thing here is that they try and do it for profit, rather than pure charity.