Isn't that approach awfully hostile, Bruce? Wouldn't the better answer be to simply advocate the use of a different product? I mean, WebGUI is simply a CMS, and there are many of those to choose from.
I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight here, but it just seems to me that there's a higher ground to be had. Plain Black Software is trying to straddle the line between releasing their source code and maintaining a revenue stream. If a user doesn't like the way they're going about it, I'd rather see that user (or, more accurately, those users) go elsewhere rather than try to deliberately undercut Plain Black's business plan.
In other words, let them succeed or fail by themselves. Don't torpedo them.
Salesman: Yea right try getting a job as a salesman and not using a networked computer. What would this person be selling.
Oh, let's say insurance. Or maybe shoes. Or how about real estate.
You don't need to use the public Internet to do any of those jobs. Keep that in mind as we go through these, okay? We're talking about jobs that you have to use the public Internet to do. (Because that's what Kevin was prohibited from doing: using the public Internet.)
Mechanic: By a strict defination any new car has several networked computers in it. Also part ordering and tracking are all done on networked computers.
None of which have to be connected to the Internet.
With very few expections all writers produce on computers and if you are working in an office they are not going to go to the trouble of taking you off the network and making sure you stay off.
They absolutely will if that's what your restraining order says they have to do. You don't have to use the Internet to be a writer.
Musician: Yea right.
What the hell does that mean? You said that three times: for musician, lawyer, and teacher. Does "Yea right" or "Yea good luck" mean "I can't think of a good objection to this so I'll just be sarky instead?"
Doctor: Most of the systems that most of the Doctor offices I have ever been in are very networked.
Are they on the Internet? If so, do they have to be, or is it a luxury item?
Sailor: Maybe merchant marine but in the Navy everyone uses computers that are on networks.
Again, connected to the public Internet?
Nurse: A large part of their job is putting patient info into and getting it out of networked systems.
Well, no, that's not a large part of a nurse's job. But that said, again we're in a situation where these computers are not connected to the Internet, and if they are, they do not have to be. And, in fact, we will soon see the day when hospital computers must not be connected to the public Internet for patient confidentiality reasons.
Photographer: Everyone uses photoshop and the internet.
I have a friend who's a professional photographer; he does mostly catalog work. Photoshop, yes. But not the Internet. This guy doesn't even have an email address.
Waiter: In many places they send your order to the other staff with you guessed it a network.
You're not getting this whole "Internet" thing, are you?
Retail salesperson: You clearly have no clue how a POS works.
You clearly have no clue that they're connected via telephone lines, not via the public Internet.
Astronomer: Almost all astronomy these days is done over networks They where very early adopters.
You might have a point here. But the question was not whether most people who do that job use the Internet; the question was whether one has to use the Internet to do the job.
I used to know a guy who was a recovering heroin addict. We had some pretty candid conversations. I told him once that I didn't understand how anybody could get addicted to heroin. I mean, coming down off of it is supposed to be horrible. It ruins your health, it ruins your life. Why would anybody do it, and once they did, why would they do it a second time?
He didn't say anything for a long time. Then he said something like this:
When people tell you not to do drugs, they tell you how bad they are for you. They tell you how they mess you up and make you sick. They tell you that you're putting poison into your veins.
But there's one thing, one little thing that they leave out. It's kind of like a secret that nobody ever tells.
The secret is this: heroin is fucking great.
Yeah, you're sitting on the floor in a room that smells like piss. Yeah, you're sticking a hot needle into your arm. Yeah, you get so constipated that you feel like you're gonna die. But none of that matters, because being on junk is like being in heaven. It's like being wrapped up inside a warm blanket, only better than you can possibly imagine. It's incredible. Wonderful. Perfect.
Nobody ever tells people this, because everybody wants people to think that drugs are bad, so they'll never try them. And that makes a lot of sense. Because the very first time you try junk, you can't not do it again. There are no casual junkies, man. There are no social heroin users. Once you get a taste of the stuff, you can't ever get it out of your head.
He kinda started to get tears in his eyes as he was telling me this, so I didn't say anything or a minute so he could get it back together. Then I asked him, "How did you get off the stuff?" He kinda laughed.
I'm not off junk, man. I just haven't scored any for eleven years, nine months, and three days. That's all.
Granted I'm a tech worker but many if not most jobs much above the poverty line at least require you to use a networked computer for at least some part of the day.
See, that's the point. Between NineNine and I, we've listed 50 well-paying jobs that do not, in any way, require the use of a networked computer at all.
I think that you're mistaken. That's no big deal; people who work with computers and computer networks tend to get myopic about the world, just as people who work in any other field. I know this is true; I used to work with computers myself.
Any travelling/professional salesman needs computers to email customers and the home office
Email is just one tool. The phone still works, you know.
If you don't count all the specialized computers that you need to fix newer cars, or to do smog tests, etc. Also, he'll need a parts guy to use a computer to find parts for him.
Since when are those computers attached to the Internet? Remember, we're talking about jobs that Kevin could have held, here.
(That also applies to everything else you said. You talked about word processors, process control systems, data analysis, and other things. None of those jobs require that a computer be connected to the Internet.)
I'm thinking if they don't mind continuing to use GPL/GNU/OSS whatever software that they could keep getting it by paying people to inspire young, impressionable developers.
But I don't see how a company, other than a hardware company, can use GPL software and stay in business. The "give away software, sell services" model isn't working. The "give away software, sell hardware" model works just fine, but that doesn't help the pure software companies out there.
Oracle, for example, would vanish immediately if they were to GPL-license their product. Or, if they were able to survive at all, they'd have to cut back on research and development to the point where their product would become stagnant. Remember, all the former "open source" programmers are off working for a living now, so they can't chip in.
The philosophy holds that any software license that permits software that was in the commons to be removed from the commons is not "Free." What is unclear about that?
The part about "free." The word "free" does not mean "bolted down." It means "free." If software is truly free, then it's not tangled up in restrictions, prohibitions, and obligations. Everything released under the GPL is thus entangled. Therefore, that which is covered by the GPL cannot possibly be called "free" by any widely accepted definition of the term.
The FSF gets around this by providing their own definition of "free." That's playing dirty pool, in my opinion.
...works derived from such works may be released under a closed and proprietary license without consequence, thus removing them from the commons.
This may seem like nitpicking, but a work derived from such works was never in "the commons" to begin with. It is not accurate to say that creating a closed work derived from an open work removes anything from "the commons."
The problem arises when people-- you may or may not fall into this category, I don't know yet-- hold the opinion that all software naturally belongs to everyone, and that trying to keep your own software secret is somehow stealing from this "commons" thing you mentioned. That idea runs counter to everything I believe about private property, so I cannot accept it.
based on some e-mail conversations I had with him following my receipt of a tirade purporting to be from him following release of my book -- an interesting story I would relate if anyone cares
I care. Would you tell the story here or in a journal article or something?
But support for the philosophy and the license terms of the GPL certainly does not automatically make me your mental inferior
Did I imply that I thought that was the case? If so, I apologize. Anybody can become confused, anybody can find himself in a situation where he's not thinking clearly. The fact that you're not thinking clearly doesn't mean you're not smart; it just means that, as I said, you need a couple of whacks from the perspective baton to reset your mental gyroscopes, to get you back to level.
As to why I feel compelled to be the wielder of said baton, I'll just copy-and-paste the quote that Slashdot felt compelled to display for me at the bottom of this page: "The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White"
What any of this has to do with Kevin Mitnick, however, escapes me.
Heck, if the big companies (IBM, Oracle) get smart, they'll recruit rabble rousers and pay them to keep indoctrinating the kids with the so called "freedom" mentality so the big companies will have a continuous stream of free code coming to them.
Well, if the GPL holds up that could be a problem. What we really need is a concerted legal attack on the GPL. Don't think precision bombing; think siege.
I would love to see the GPL overturned somehow. For no other reason than to upset RMS's apple cart.
I think the question should probably be lobbed back into your court. Think of all the jobs in widespread availability, and list the ones in which you do have to touch a network computer.
If this "isn't really a free speech issue", then why are you defending this activity on free speech terms?
Fair question. First of all, what I actually said was, "This isn't a free speech issue, but what you are saying is (cite argument in favor of suppressing speech)." Subtle difference. I was trying to point out that I wasn't going to argue on the grounds of the 1st Amendment.
The grounds on which I'm defending (as much as I hate to admit it) this activity is simply the fact that it's not prohibited by law, and that figuring out how to write a law that prohibits it without opening up at least one other can of worms is going to be very, very difficult.
Hmm... when I was in US History class, the US Army, civilian life etc... I was taught that the ability to speak critically of our government was a fundamental right and was part of why this country worked.
Oh, it is. But it can also be harmful, and so that freedom to speak critically should be exercised wisely. One should take care when attacking the person, character, or intelligence of the man who happens to be President right now, because we're stuck with him until the next election, and having a President that is widely laughed at can do a lot of harm in the meantime.
I was a soldier in the 82d Airborne (A 1/325th PIR)...
Assuming this is true-- hey, no offense, but I have no idea who you are-- then I have something I'd like to say to you. I mean it seriously, and without sarcasm or irony of any kind. What I'd like to say is this:
I don't see much difference in the use of "free" in "free as a bird" vs "free Willy"
"Free as in Willy" means something that was set free, something that was released. Think of "free as in Willy" as being kind of like abandonware. It didn't start out free, but it was released into the wild later. Think "born in captivity, then released."
"Free as in bird," of course, means something that is born free (crap, now I've got that song running through my head instead!), something that was inherently free and cannot be caged.
Of course, until we have a real AI personality, this send of free isn't appropriate to thinking about software, while the other two are.
Beer, sure, but how is "free as in speech" appropriate for thinking about software? "Free speech" is a right that people have under law. The law says, basically, that I can say whatever I want, subject to certain boundaries. You can't lie in print with the intent to defame, for example. Applying the idea of free speech to software, you'd naturally end up with the idea that you can write any program you want, subject to certain boundaries. But those boundaries that apply to free speech wouldn't apply to software the same way; it makes little sense to say that you can't lie in a program with the intent to defame. That's just crazy talk.
So applying the idea of free speech to free software, you have "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of people to write computer programs."
What does this have to do with the FSF? Nothing, really. Which is why I said that "free as in speech" was never really appropriate to begin with.
I do like the idea of adding more kinds of free to the mix, as well as poking some fun at those who take themselves too seriously, but I think it needs a little work to actually be funny.
Maybe. But funny is as funny does, and it make me laugh.;-)
Just wondering, since I really do want all the software I use to be "free" to use, modify, and copy, without restrictions.
There you go. I think people who accept what the FSF say aren't thinking clearly because they tend to believe that software licensed under the GPL is "free to use, modify, and copy, without restrictions." This is, quite simply, not at all true.
Do you *like* having to buy three copies of windows for three computers and stuff like that?
I'm a Mac user myself. Until recently, we had four Macs in our house. (Two of mine, including one quite old, my girlfriend's laptop, and a company laptop.) I recently divested myself of one of those. But back in August, when Apple released Mac OS X 10.2, I cheerfully plopped my $199 down for a five-user license. Why? Because I knew exactly what I would be getting for my money, and considered it to be a bargain at twice the price.
Maybe we should call it "flexible" software instead of "free", how about that.
Hmm. I haven't heard that one before. I think you might be on to something.
Unfortunately-- and this is most definitely one of my hot buttons-- I doubt that the FSF will ever consider dropping the term "free software" for a more accurate name. See, it seems that the FSF is more concerned with politics and with marketing than with accuracy or honesty. They call their software "free" not because it is, but because "free" is a more positive word than "flexible," or any other alternative.
The FSF's use of "free" to (incorrectly) describe their product leads to things like I saw yesterday, where an FSF advocate asked, "What is it about freedom that you don't like?" The answer, of course, is nothing. There's nothing about freedom that I don't like. The FSF and the GPL, however, are different kettles of fish.
Absolutely. The "free software" ideal only works if everybody gives everything away for free. And we've seen how well that's worked in the past...
That's why I hold the theory that the "free software" movement was born in the postwar affluence of the 1950's. A chicken in every pot, and all that. The people who started the "free software" movement grew up in comfortable suburban homes in which everything was provided for them and they never had to suffer for want. So when they reached young adulthood in the 1960's, it seemed natural for them to latch on the idea of collectivism as a valid economic model; we all have everything we need, so why shouldn't we share what we create? This ignores, of course, the fact that the needs of these folks were met because their parents slaved away at highly competitive jobs in a decidedly non-collectivist environment.
I hope the pendulum starts to swing back soon. I think it will. After enough software companies go out of business, after enough high tech jobs are exported overseas to India and China, after enough "free software" folks have to go out and work for a living, we'll see a return to the ideals of our fathers.
The President should get the same respect any human being gets, no more, no less -- and that means that when he does something stupid, we have every right to make use of that for both serious criticism and offhand jokes.
It's important to distinguish between the office of President of the United States and the man who holds that office at any given time.
When you shake hands with the President, you're shaking hands with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and all the others, great and not as great, who have held that title and that office. While, as you so rightly point out, we should not forget that the President is merely a man, first among equals, neither should we forget that he is also the President.
The Barber is applying his little whisk broom to Bob's waistcoat while WW pulls out his purse to make payment.
ENGLISH BOB contd.
Why, if you were to point a pistol
at a King or a Queen, sir, I can
assure you your hand would shake
as though palsied...
BARBER
(looking at Bob's
pistols)
I wouldn't point no pistol at
nobody, sir.
ENGLISH BOB
(putting on his frock
coat over his guns)
A wise policy. But if you did,
I can assure you, the sight of
royalty would cause you to
dismiss all thoughts of bloodshed
and stand... in awe.
(pause)
Whereas, a president... I mean,
why not shoot a president?
Re:What's worth respecting?
on
Kevin Free
·
· Score: 2
In this administration, what is worth respecting?
The office itself, instantiating and symbolizing a continuous line of peaceful succession lasting over 225 years, a feat unmatched by any democracy before or since.
One should not, under any circumstances, let one's disapproval of the person in the office or the policies of the office spill over into a disapproval of the office itself or the system in which it is a part.
It's that kind of thinking that leads to misguided conclusions like, "Democracy just doesn't work."
Re:Foolish Punishment?!??
on
Kevin Free
·
· Score: 5, Funny
My wife worked in the courts for a few years and while people lost the "privledge" of driving for multiple DUI and DWI's that "never" stopped any of them from driving and "rarely" caused any of them to server more than 30 days (which also was a rare occurrence).
I find your "use" of "quotation marks" somewhat "confusing." Do you "mean" them as "irony" or as "emphasis?"
Just "asking."
Re:Free Kevin?
on
Kevin Free
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Twirlip my man, you remind me of that guy on Usenet in the old days who would always appear whenever his name was mentioned.
Kibo?
I am not Kibo.
Except you appear whenever there's a chance to push your anti-FSF agenda.
It's not so much that I have an anti-FSF agenda as I think that the people who accept what the FSF is saying aren't thinking clearly, and they need to be struck once or twice about the head and shoulders with the perspective baton.
If I have a message, it can only be this: Thou shalt not think so highly of thyself.
Well, also this: Blessed art those who stand above us, for they shall be called lightning rods.
Also: Blessed art the extremists, for they shall make the rest of us look moderate by comparison.
Actually, I guess I have a bunch of messages. Oh, well. We'll see how it turns out.
You just couldn't resist taking a poke at the President, could you? Damn, what has happened to the world today? People are so incredibly disrespectful. When I was growing up, my parents taught me to be respectful of people in authority even when you disagree with them.
This is not only the polite thing to do, it's also prudent. After all, Confucius said, "Truly straightforward was the historiographer Yu. When good government prevailed in his state, he was like an arrow. When bad government prevailed, he was like an arrow. A superior man indeed is Chu Po-yu! When good government prevails in his state, he is to be found in office. When bad government prevails, he can roll his principles up, and keep them in his breast."
Computers are too essential to life in America today for that to be a reasonable punishment.
Essential? Hardly. What do you do with your computer that you can't do-- better, in some instances-- in another way?
Sorry to sound so abrupt, but the persistent and widespread myth that the "computer age" is somehow fundamentally different from the times that came before it really gets on my nerves.
Just for fun, try taking a week off from your computer(s). Go camping or something. You'd be surprised how little you miss it.
Hee hee. Next time somebody uses that tired and never-was-all-that-appropriate cliche, "Free as in speech or free as in beer?" I'll know just how to respond.
"Do you mean free as in bird, or free as in Willy?"
Hee hee. The people who take themselves too seriously are going to love that one.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, where have you been for the past two years or so?
The name of the operating system is "Mac OS X." That's pronounced "Mac Oh Ess Ten," because "X" is a Roman numeral.
The most recent version of the operating system is 10.2.3. That's pronounced... oh, you know. The usual way.
So the full and complete name of the most recent version of the operating system is "Mac OS X 10.2.3." Spoken aloud, that sounds like this.
If this causes a cognitive dissonance response in you, then just sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
Isn't that approach awfully hostile, Bruce? Wouldn't the better answer be to simply advocate the use of a different product? I mean, WebGUI is simply a CMS, and there are many of those to choose from.
I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight here, but it just seems to me that there's a higher ground to be had. Plain Black Software is trying to straddle the line between releasing their source code and maintaining a revenue stream. If a user doesn't like the way they're going about it, I'd rather see that user (or, more accurately, those users) go elsewhere rather than try to deliberately undercut Plain Black's business plan.
In other words, let them succeed or fail by themselves. Don't torpedo them.
I see that you have some reading comprehension issues.
I see that you have an attitude problem. I think we're done here.
I think the most important thing about freedom of speech is that we excercise it with honesty.
I'll go along with that. I would say, if asked, that second to honesty is the importance of discretion, but that's only a small thing.
Salesman: Yea right try getting a job as a salesman and not using a networked computer. What would this person be selling.
Oh, let's say insurance. Or maybe shoes. Or how about real estate.
You don't need to use the public Internet to do any of those jobs. Keep that in mind as we go through these, okay? We're talking about jobs that you have to use the public Internet to do. (Because that's what Kevin was prohibited from doing: using the public Internet.)
Mechanic: By a strict defination any new car has several networked computers in it. Also part ordering and tracking are all done on networked computers.
None of which have to be connected to the Internet.
With very few expections all writers produce on computers and if you are working in an office they are not going to go to the trouble of taking you off the network and making sure you stay off.
They absolutely will if that's what your restraining order says they have to do. You don't have to use the Internet to be a writer.
Musician: Yea right.
What the hell does that mean? You said that three times: for musician, lawyer, and teacher. Does "Yea right" or "Yea good luck" mean "I can't think of a good objection to this so I'll just be sarky instead?"
Doctor: Most of the systems that most of the Doctor offices I have ever been in are very networked.
Are they on the Internet? If so, do they have to be, or is it a luxury item?
Sailor: Maybe merchant marine but in the Navy everyone uses computers that are on networks.
Again, connected to the public Internet?
Nurse: A large part of their job is putting patient info into and getting it out of networked systems.
Well, no, that's not a large part of a nurse's job. But that said, again we're in a situation where these computers are not connected to the Internet, and if they are, they do not have to be. And, in fact, we will soon see the day when hospital computers must not be connected to the public Internet for patient confidentiality reasons.
Photographer: Everyone uses photoshop and the internet.
I have a friend who's a professional photographer; he does mostly catalog work. Photoshop, yes. But not the Internet. This guy doesn't even have an email address.
Waiter: In many places they send your order to the other staff with you guessed it a network.
You're not getting this whole "Internet" thing, are you?
Retail salesperson: You clearly have no clue how a POS works.
You clearly have no clue that they're connected via telephone lines, not via the public Internet.
Astronomer: Almost all astronomy these days is done over networks They where very early adopters.
You might have a point here. But the question was not whether most people who do that job use the Internet; the question was whether one has to use the Internet to do the job.
And so forth for almost everything you listed.
Ditto.
He didn't say anything for a long time. Then he said something like this:He kinda started to get tears in his eyes as he was telling me this, so I didn't say anything or a minute so he could get it back together. Then I asked him, "How did you get off the stuff?" He kinda laughed.
Granted I'm a tech worker but many if not most jobs much above the poverty line at least require you to use a networked computer for at least some part of the day.
See, that's the point. Between NineNine and I, we've listed 50 well-paying jobs that do not, in any way, require the use of a networked computer at all.
I think that you're mistaken. That's no big deal; people who work with computers and computer networks tend to get myopic about the world, just as people who work in any other field. I know this is true; I used to work with computers myself.
Any travelling/professional salesman needs computers to email customers and the home office
Email is just one tool. The phone still works, you know.
If you don't count all the specialized computers that you need to fix newer cars, or to do smog tests, etc. Also, he'll need a parts guy to use a computer to find parts for him.
Since when are those computers attached to the Internet? Remember, we're talking about jobs that Kevin could have held, here.
(That also applies to everything else you said. You talked about word processors, process control systems, data analysis, and other things. None of those jobs require that a computer be connected to the Internet.)
on 64bit archs, ints are STILL 32bits. only longs and pointers become 64bits.
Of course, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking. I mean to say "pointer" but typed "int" anyway. Oops.
I'm thinking if they don't mind continuing to use GPL/GNU/OSS whatever software that they could keep getting it by paying people to inspire young, impressionable developers.
But I don't see how a company, other than a hardware company, can use GPL software and stay in business. The "give away software, sell services" model isn't working. The "give away software, sell hardware" model works just fine, but that doesn't help the pure software companies out there.
Oracle, for example, would vanish immediately if they were to GPL-license their product. Or, if they were able to survive at all, they'd have to cut back on research and development to the point where their product would become stagnant. Remember, all the former "open source" programmers are off working for a living now, so they can't chip in.
The part about "free." The word "free" does not mean "bolted down." It means "free." If software is truly free, then it's not tangled up in restrictions, prohibitions, and obligations. Everything released under the GPL is thus entangled. Therefore, that which is covered by the GPL cannot possibly be called "free" by any widely accepted definition of the term.
The FSF gets around this by providing their own definition of "free." That's playing dirty pool, in my opinion.
This may seem like nitpicking, but a work derived from such works was never in "the commons" to begin with. It is not accurate to say that creating a closed work derived from an open work removes anything from "the commons."
The problem arises when people-- you may or may not fall into this category, I don't know yet-- hold the opinion that all software naturally belongs to everyone, and that trying to keep your own software secret is somehow stealing from this "commons" thing you mentioned. That idea runs counter to everything I believe about private property, so I cannot accept it.
based on some e-mail conversations I had with him following my receipt of a tirade purporting to be from him following release of my book -- an interesting story I would relate if anyone cares
I care. Would you tell the story here or in a journal article or something?
But support for the philosophy and the license terms of the GPL certainly does not automatically make me your mental inferior
Did I imply that I thought that was the case? If so, I apologize. Anybody can become confused, anybody can find himself in a situation where he's not thinking clearly. The fact that you're not thinking clearly doesn't mean you're not smart; it just means that, as I said, you need a couple of whacks from the perspective baton to reset your mental gyroscopes, to get you back to level.
As to why I feel compelled to be the wielder of said baton, I'll just copy-and-paste the quote that Slashdot felt compelled to display for me at the bottom of this page: "The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White"
What any of this has to do with Kevin Mitnick, however, escapes me.
I've forgotten, too.
Heck, if the big companies (IBM, Oracle) get smart, they'll recruit rabble rousers and pay them to keep indoctrinating the kids with the so called "freedom" mentality so the big companies will have a continuous stream of free code coming to them.
Well, if the GPL holds up that could be a problem. What we really need is a concerted legal attack on the GPL. Don't think precision bombing; think siege.
I would love to see the GPL overturned somehow. For no other reason than to upset RMS's apple cart.
Everything that NineNine said, plus a few:
Salesman. Mechanic. Writer. Musician. Actor. Doctor. Sailor. Nurse. Tailor. Press operator. Photographer. Grocery store sacker. Waiter or waitress. Retail salesperson. Policeman. Janitor. Lawyer. Pilot. Reporter. Teacher. Miner. Astronomer. Scientist. Lab technician. Porn star. Security guard. Flight attendant. Secretary. Soldier. Steel worker. Auto worker. Cinematographer. Historian. Tour guide. Diplomat. Accountant. Repairman. Spy. Priest.
I think the question should probably be lobbed back into your court. Think of all the jobs in widespread availability, and list the ones in which you do have to touch a network computer.
If this "isn't really a free speech issue", then why are you defending this activity on free speech terms?
Fair question. First of all, what I actually said was, "This isn't a free speech issue, but what you are saying is (cite argument in favor of suppressing speech)." Subtle difference. I was trying to point out that I wasn't going to argue on the grounds of the 1st Amendment.
The grounds on which I'm defending (as much as I hate to admit it) this activity is simply the fact that it's not prohibited by law, and that figuring out how to write a law that prohibits it without opening up at least one other can of worms is going to be very, very difficult.
Hmm... when I was in US History class, the US Army, civilian life etc... I was taught that the ability to speak critically of our government was a fundamental right and was part of why this country worked.
Oh, it is. But it can also be harmful, and so that freedom to speak critically should be exercised wisely. One should take care when attacking the person, character, or intelligence of the man who happens to be President right now, because we're stuck with him until the next election, and having a President that is widely laughed at can do a lot of harm in the meantime.
I was a soldier in the 82d Airborne (A 1/325th PIR)...
Assuming this is true-- hey, no offense, but I have no idea who you are-- then I have something I'd like to say to you. I mean it seriously, and without sarcasm or irony of any kind. What I'd like to say is this:
Thanks.
I don't see much difference in the use of "free" in "free as a bird" vs "free Willy"
;-)
"Free as in Willy" means something that was set free, something that was released. Think of "free as in Willy" as being kind of like abandonware. It didn't start out free, but it was released into the wild later. Think "born in captivity, then released."
"Free as in bird," of course, means something that is born free (crap, now I've got that song running through my head instead!), something that was inherently free and cannot be caged.
Of course, until we have a real AI personality, this send of free isn't appropriate to thinking about software, while the other two are.
Beer, sure, but how is "free as in speech" appropriate for thinking about software? "Free speech" is a right that people have under law. The law says, basically, that I can say whatever I want, subject to certain boundaries. You can't lie in print with the intent to defame, for example. Applying the idea of free speech to software, you'd naturally end up with the idea that you can write any program you want, subject to certain boundaries. But those boundaries that apply to free speech wouldn't apply to software the same way; it makes little sense to say that you can't lie in a program with the intent to defame. That's just crazy talk.
So applying the idea of free speech to free software, you have "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of people to write computer programs."
What does this have to do with the FSF? Nothing, really. Which is why I said that "free as in speech" was never really appropriate to begin with.
I do like the idea of adding more kinds of free to the mix, as well as poking some fun at those who take themselves too seriously, but I think it needs a little work to actually be funny.
Maybe. But funny is as funny does, and it make me laugh.
Just wondering, since I really do want all the software I use to be "free" to use, modify, and copy, without restrictions.
There you go. I think people who accept what the FSF say aren't thinking clearly because they tend to believe that software licensed under the GPL is "free to use, modify, and copy, without restrictions." This is, quite simply, not at all true.
Do you *like* having to buy three copies of windows for three computers and stuff like that?
I'm a Mac user myself. Until recently, we had four Macs in our house. (Two of mine, including one quite old, my girlfriend's laptop, and a company laptop.) I recently divested myself of one of those. But back in August, when Apple released Mac OS X 10.2, I cheerfully plopped my $199 down for a five-user license. Why? Because I knew exactly what I would be getting for my money, and considered it to be a bargain at twice the price.
Maybe we should call it "flexible" software instead of "free", how about that.
Hmm. I haven't heard that one before. I think you might be on to something.
Unfortunately-- and this is most definitely one of my hot buttons-- I doubt that the FSF will ever consider dropping the term "free software" for a more accurate name. See, it seems that the FSF is more concerned with politics and with marketing than with accuracy or honesty. They call their software "free" not because it is, but because "free" is a more positive word than "flexible," or any other alternative.
The FSF's use of "free" to (incorrectly) describe their product leads to things like I saw yesterday, where an FSF advocate asked, "What is it about freedom that you don't like?" The answer, of course, is nothing. There's nothing about freedom that I don't like. The FSF and the GPL, however, are different kettles of fish.
Absolutely. The "free software" ideal only works if everybody gives everything away for free. And we've seen how well that's worked in the past...
That's why I hold the theory that the "free software" movement was born in the postwar affluence of the 1950's. A chicken in every pot, and all that. The people who started the "free software" movement grew up in comfortable suburban homes in which everything was provided for them and they never had to suffer for want. So when they reached young adulthood in the 1960's, it seemed natural for them to latch on the idea of collectivism as a valid economic model; we all have everything we need, so why shouldn't we share what we create? This ignores, of course, the fact that the needs of these folks were met because their parents slaved away at highly competitive jobs in a decidedly non-collectivist environment.
I hope the pendulum starts to swing back soon. I think it will. After enough software companies go out of business, after enough high tech jobs are exported overseas to India and China, after enough "free software" folks have to go out and work for a living, we'll see a return to the ideals of our fathers.
Can't wait.
It's important to distinguish between the office of President of the United States and the man who holds that office at any given time.
When you shake hands with the President, you're shaking hands with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and all the others, great and not as great, who have held that title and that office. While, as you so rightly point out, we should not forget that the President is merely a man, first among equals, neither should we forget that he is also the President.
In this administration, what is worth respecting?
The office itself, instantiating and symbolizing a continuous line of peaceful succession lasting over 225 years, a feat unmatched by any democracy before or since.
One should not, under any circumstances, let one's disapproval of the person in the office or the policies of the office spill over into a disapproval of the office itself or the system in which it is a part.
It's that kind of thinking that leads to misguided conclusions like, "Democracy just doesn't work."
My wife worked in the courts for a few years and while people lost the "privledge" of driving for multiple DUI and DWI's that "never" stopped any of them from driving and "rarely" caused any of them to server more than 30 days (which also was a rare occurrence).
I find your "use" of "quotation marks" somewhat "confusing." Do you "mean" them as "irony" or as "emphasis?"
Just "asking."
Twirlip my man, you remind me of that guy on Usenet in the old days who would always appear whenever his name was mentioned.
Kibo?
I am not Kibo.
Except you appear whenever there's a chance to push your anti-FSF agenda.
It's not so much that I have an anti-FSF agenda as I think that the people who accept what the FSF is saying aren't thinking clearly, and they need to be struck once or twice about the head and shoulders with the perspective baton.
If I have a message, it can only be this: Thou shalt not think so highly of thyself.
Well, also this: Blessed art those who stand above us, for they shall be called lightning rods.
Also: Blessed art the extremists, for they shall make the rest of us look moderate by comparison.
Actually, I guess I have a bunch of messages. Oh, well. We'll see how it turns out.
You just couldn't resist taking a poke at the President, could you? Damn, what has happened to the world today? People are so incredibly disrespectful. When I was growing up, my parents taught me to be respectful of people in authority even when you disagree with them.
This is not only the polite thing to do, it's also prudent. After all, Confucius said, "Truly straightforward was the historiographer Yu. When good government prevailed in his state, he was like an arrow. When bad government prevailed, he was like an arrow. A superior man indeed is Chu Po-yu! When good government prevails in his state, he is to be found in office. When bad government prevails, he can roll his principles up, and keep them in his breast."
Computers are too essential to life in America today for that to be a reasonable punishment.
Essential? Hardly. What do you do with your computer that you can't do-- better, in some instances-- in another way?
Sorry to sound so abrupt, but the persistent and widespread myth that the "computer age" is somehow fundamentally different from the times that came before it really gets on my nerves.
Just for fun, try taking a week off from your computer(s). Go camping or something. You'd be surprised how little you miss it.
Hee hee. Next time somebody uses that tired and never-was-all-that-appropriate cliche, "Free as in speech or free as in beer?" I'll know just how to respond.
"Do you mean free as in bird, or free as in Willy?"
Hee hee. The people who take themselves too seriously are going to love that one.