Well, yes, but is this not because there has been no significant issue with nanotech yet? I mean, we all know about radioactivity since Hiroshima/Nagasaki. On the other hand, people were afraid to get on the first trains, because they thought their internal organs would be mashed up because of the 'enormous' speeds.
Add to this the more apathic 'politicians know what is best for us' mentality there seems to be nowadays; it would come as no surprise that something has to go wrong first before the general public takes notice. Compare this to the first mayor harvest season gone wrong before Monsato will face legislation to ensure bio-diversaty.
You are using reason. Stop that. The subject is drugs, so we should all let our primordial fears and emotions take precedence over using the higher parts of our brains.
Ah, I think that is the pain of getting old. Every time I see a program lagging in speed I think back to the days I had to program assembly language on a 8088 based PC. The 80286 on 6 MHz was quite fast when running highly optimized code (use XOR AX,AX because that was faster (1 clockcycle) and smaller (1 byte opcode) than MOV AX,0).
Around that time, the 30386 came out. At 16MHz that thing could run my programs so fast, it blew me out of the water. Makes me a bit said to see the sometimes abysmal performance and startup times of some applications and OS-es these days...
NetBeans has a nice option which let you apply the chanches in your code without having to deploy a war file or restart the application or the whole of tomcat: Run | Apply Code Changes. It does not work for every class, but it can be a real time-saver. Since ant is used under the hood all of the build scripts still have to run, but usually the whole build system is smart enough to not recompile unchanged classes.
Mussolini used a definition for fascism; it was something like: "Fascism is the coming together of state and corporate power.". I fail to see a connection here.
dictionary.com gives the following definition:
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922-43.
Arresting a raving individual does not automatically equals suppressing opposition and criticism, especially in this case.
He said that people should not "follow" Linus. How would you define that?
There is a great difference between 'do not follow because <argument0>, <argument1>, <argument2>' and 'do not listen to person X'.
RMS doesn't want you to listen to him and simply say 'Amen', he wants you to listen to him and understand why freedom is important.
Euphemism FTW.
I fail to see a euphemism here. Making people blindly follow you is religion (which you implied by using the word 'Amen'), making people look at all arguments and have them make up their own mind is completely different. RMS does what he does because he believes in freedom of the mind, he does not want people to listen to him, but to his arguments. Big difference and no euphemism at all.
Oh, but you have all the rights to do with your property as you please. The only thing RMS says that if you want to use *someone else's* property, you can, but you have to give other people the same rights to the property that you created (added) as you enjoyed using someone else's property!
Please enlighten me in how this equates to a political system that suppresses free thought, free speech, free travel etc.
It *is* about freedom. No one is forcing you to use another persons code. You are free not to. But if you would like to use GPL-ed code from person X, you have to give the users of your code the same freedom as person X has given you.
And remember that this is not about *your* freedom as a developer per se, it is about the freedom of an end-user of software. When you use and incorporate GPL-ed software written by someone else in your software, you must give the users of your software the same freedom you enjoyed: they can use your code and build upon it.
Stallman is issuing one of his usual periodic decrees that people whose views differ from his own should not be listened to.
That's strange, I have never read or heard him say that. In fact, I think he encourages to listen to *all* arguments and make up your own mind. He thinks that freedom to use, study, modify and redistribute code is extremely important. He clearly states that Linus has a different point of view. How's that equal to saying people should not listen to what Linus has to say?
The people who usually do listen to such will listen to it and say Amen (...)
RMS doesn't want you to listen to him and simply say 'Amen', he wants you to listen to him and understand why freedom is important.
An EULA is not legally binding because it is (illegally) forced on you after the sale of a product, restricting your legal rights. The GPL is not forced on you; if you choose to reject it, normal copyright kicks in. If you choose to accept the GPL you receive additional rights not normally given to you under normal copyright.
The GPL has been out there for a great number of years. I hope your comment is based on little knowledge on the difference between EULAs and the GPL, and not on intentional putting down the GPL.
And the RIAA is well known for representing record labels, not artists. Do not let orwellian naming schemes fool you.
Maybe it has something to do with a lot of US-citizens saying (and believing) that they live in the greatest country on earth. Or "God's country" if you will. You cannot uphold that notion and behave as badly as other countries.
You are right about the contradiction; it is a bit implicit thought (and that is why I missed it;-), but it is indeed another error in the author's line of reasoning.
Call it what you may, but RMS thinks everyones freedom to be able to study, change, redeploy, etc. the software that one uses is the most important thing. Companies have their main priorities set on making (more) profit and only care about your freedom when it influences their possiblilities to make that profit.
The Vatican thinks everyone should live their lives according to the 10 commandments and other stuff from the bible.
Me thinks that these different viewpoints and different views of what is best lead to quite different behaviour.
The problem is that RMS really is not opposed to drm per se, he is indifferent when it comes to drm as long as there may and can be free implementations of that drm-scheme. Current drm-schemes cannot be freely reverse engineered, changed and Freely implemented, because of the DMCA/EUCD. And yes, Free implementations do allow you to format-shift to non-drm formats.
Not who: what. Answer: the GPL. It gives YOU (the end-user) a lot of freedom in using software that is released under its conditions.
If you know anything about RMS you would know that he is concerned with your freedom; he would only be opposed to country music if it would limit your freedom in using software.
This is imho a classic case of FUD: heavy use of emotinal words and reasoning, false reasoning, using a pro-argument as an against-argument simply by stating it differently.
I tried to make an analysis of the article, and here's what I came up with:
Alinea 1: Introduction with mistake: "software should be free" was not a radical idea; a lot of software already used to be free delivered including the source.
Alinea 2: Short description of RMS
Alinea 3: main statement, uses lots of emotionaly loaded words
Alinea 4: this should be backing up alinea 3, but just poses a new statement, again with the use of emotionaly loaded words
Alinea 5 & 6: author does not seem to see the dangers in drm and uses emotions ('if you do not agree with me you are as stupid as people who fell for obvious hoaxes') to direct the user instead of using arguments
Alinea 7: This is a non argument: so companies are making money using drm; this has nothing to do with the reasons the FSF is opposed to current drm implementations.
Alinea 8 & 9: A media player which will not allow you to play certain files is comparable with a car that will not allow you to drive on certain roads, i.e. "won't let you steer" to go on these roads. That customers would not buy such a car while they do buy such players suggests that the FSF has to step up its campaign; ironically the writer here makes a case agains his own statement.
Also, the author suggests that a free market needs no regulation. Unfortunately, history has shown that a free market without regulation does not work properly (labour issues, environmental issues and moral issues are less important than making a profit).
Alinea 10: Again, the false assumption that consumers can change the market in all situations. Also a non-argument: the fsf does not made any statements about drm interfering with the _creation_ of data, only with the _playing_ of data.
Alinea 11: Correct facts about the FSF; does not strengthen the author's statement in any way.
Alinea 12: Again, use of emotionally loaded words. Wrong reasoning: drm is not an algorithm. By the way, RMS has stated that drm may be used, as long as Free (as in speech) implementations of that drm-scheme are possible, so this argument is wrong on two counts.
The "God on their side" argument is ridiculous, as there are often reasons to abandon social and economic arguments in favour of morale: for instance I do not kill people who are of no economic value, so morale clearly prevails here.
Alinea 13: Author claims RMS is not rational w.r.t. drm. RMS has however imho written clear and rational about drm using arguments and not emotionally loaded words or orwellian newspeak.
Claim about FSF without any backing up.
Alinea 14: Emotionally loaded comparison and repeat of claim from alinea 13.
So, what have we: a claim that is not backed up by valid arguments, only by another claim that is in fact not backed up by arguments. A lot of paying on the readers' emotions.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes, but is this not because there has been no significant issue with nanotech yet? I mean, we all know about radioactivity since Hiroshima/Nagasaki. On the other hand, people were afraid to get on the first trains, because they thought their internal organs would be mashed up because of the 'enormous' speeds.
Add to this the more apathic 'politicians know what is best for us' mentality there seems to be nowadays; it would come as no surprise that something has to go wrong first before the general public takes notice. Compare this to the first mayor harvest season gone wrong before Monsato will face legislation to ensure bio-diversaty.
Well informed scientist see more possible causes for harm than the non-informed general public. This hardly comes as a surprise to me.
"Please state the nature of the medical emergency."
You are using reason. Stop that. The subject is drugs, so we should all let our primordial fears and emotions take precedence over using the higher parts of our brains.
It would also introduce abiguity when someone shouts: "Shoot!".
Ah, I think that is the pain of getting old. Every time I see a program lagging in speed I think back to the days I had to program assembly language on a 8088 based PC. The 80286 on 6 MHz was quite fast when running highly optimized code (use XOR AX,AX because that was faster (1 clockcycle) and smaller (1 byte opcode) than MOV AX,0).
Around that time, the 30386 came out. At 16MHz that thing could run my programs so fast, it blew me out of the water. Makes me a bit said to see the sometimes abysmal performance and startup times of some applications and OS-es these days...
NetBeans has a nice option which let you apply the chanches in your code without having to deploy a war file or restart the application or the whole of tomcat: Run | Apply Code Changes. It does not work for every class, but it can be a real time-saver. Since ant is used under the hood all of the build scripts still have to run, but usually the whole build system is smart enough to not recompile unchanged classes.
Aha. So Stalin was a fascist? Dzjenghis Khan was a fascist? Kim Jong Il was a fascist? They all forcibly suppressed opposition and criticism...
When only one out of three conditions applies, you cannot use the label 'fascist'.
Mussolini used a definition for fascism; it was something like: "Fascism is the coming together of state and corporate power.". I fail to see a connection here.
dictionary.com gives the following definition:
Arresting a raving individual does not automatically equals suppressing opposition and criticism, especially in this case.There is a great difference between 'do not follow because <argument0>, <argument1>, <argument2>' and 'do not listen to person X'.
I fail to see a euphemism here. Making people blindly follow you is religion (which you implied by using the word 'Amen'), making people look at all arguments and have them make up their own mind is completely different. RMS does what he does because he believes in freedom of the mind, he does not want people to listen to him, but to his arguments. Big difference and no euphemism at all.
Oh, but you have all the rights to do with your property as you please. The only thing RMS says that if you want to use *someone else's* property, you can, but you have to give other people the same rights to the property that you created (added) as you enjoyed using someone else's property!
Please enlighten me in how this equates to a political system that suppresses free thought, free speech, free travel etc.
It *is* about freedom. No one is forcing you to use another persons code. You are free not to. But if you would like to use GPL-ed code from person X, you have to give the users of your code the same freedom as person X has given you.
And remember that this is not about *your* freedom as a developer per se, it is about the freedom of an end-user of software. When you use and incorporate GPL-ed software written by someone else in your software, you must give the users of your software the same freedom you enjoyed: they can use your code and build upon it.
That's strange, I have never read or heard him say that. In fact, I think he encourages to listen to *all* arguments and make up your own mind. He thinks that freedom to use, study, modify and redistribute code is extremely important. He clearly states that Linus has a different point of view. How's that equal to saying people should not listen to what Linus has to say?
RMS doesn't want you to listen to him and simply say 'Amen', he wants you to listen to him and understand why freedom is important.
As a fellow Lowlander (and yes, been to Biddinghuizen last weekend ;-) I am very curious about this lawsuit you mention. Do you happen to have a link?
An EULA is not legally binding because it is (illegally) forced on you after the sale of a product, restricting your legal rights. The GPL is not forced on you; if you choose to reject it, normal copyright kicks in. If you choose to accept the GPL you receive additional rights not normally given to you under normal copyright.
The GPL has been out there for a great number of years. I hope your comment is based on little knowledge on the difference between EULAs and the GPL, and not on intentional putting down the GPL.
And the RIAA is well known for representing record labels, not artists. Do not let orwellian naming schemes fool you.
Maybe it has something to do with a lot of US-citizens saying (and believing) that they live in the greatest country on earth. Or "God's country" if you will. You cannot uphold that notion and behave as badly as other countries.
I am really interested to hear what RMS is going to say about this. And I wonder a certain artice of his as had any influence at the Sun top.
Windows is reasonably secure against viruses and spyware as long as you don't use it on the internet.
Yup, and my sandals are reasonable water-proof, as long as I stay indoors.
You are right about the contradiction; it is a bit implicit thought (and that is why I missed it ;-), but it is indeed another error in the author's line of reasoning.
As far as I can tell, 'alinea' is not a word in English.
You are right: I should have used the word 'paragraph' instead.
Call it what you may, but RMS thinks everyones freedom to be able to study, change, redeploy, etc. the software that one uses is the most important thing. Companies have their main priorities set on making (more) profit and only care about your freedom when it influences their possiblilities to make that profit.
The Vatican thinks everyone should live their lives according to the 10 commandments and other stuff from the bible.
Me thinks that these different viewpoints and different views of what is best lead to quite different behaviour.
The problem is that RMS really is not opposed to drm per se, he is indifferent when it comes to drm as long as there may and can be free implementations of that drm-scheme. Current drm-schemes cannot be freely reverse engineered, changed and Freely implemented, because of the DMCA/EUCD. And yes, Free implementations do allow you to format-shift to non-drm formats.
Also, please read http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=187065&cid=154 33708 for an example of how your freedom is impaired by drm.
(...) I merely imply that it is not the best tool for every job (...)
"Best" is an objective point of view. RMS' point of view is different to yours.
Who'd be there to stop him?
Not who: what. Answer: the GPL. It gives YOU (the end-user) a lot of freedom in using software that is released under its conditions.
If you know anything about RMS you would know that he is concerned with your freedom; he would only be opposed to country music if it would limit your freedom in using software.
This is imho a classic case of FUD: heavy use of emotinal words and reasoning, false reasoning, using a pro-argument as an against-argument simply by stating it differently.
I tried to make an analysis of the article, and here's what I came up with:
Also, the author suggests that a free market needs no regulation. Unfortunately, history has shown that a free market without regulation does not work properly (labour issues, environmental issues and moral issues are less important than making a profit).
So, what have we: a claim that is not backed up by valid arguments, only by another claim that is in fact not backed up by arguments. A lot of paying on the readers' emotions.
Can't wait to see RMS' rebuttal on this one.