You are right. In Christianity at least, the idea of Hell as a
place of eternal torment is
untenable. A good example appears below: amRadioHed
destroys
C.S. Lewis' "free will" argument in just two paragraphs.
He is, in some people's view, the best of what the Catholic (Calvinist, whatever) church has to offer
in terms of theology, and yet his argument is totally inane. You just cannot
reconcile the notions of God being the benevolent, omnipotent designer
who designs some souls to suffer forever... For what? For not
appeasing God in some way? But he has no lack. There is no way
to hurt God or to be in debt to him. He would not miss a penny,
would not drop a single tear if he allowed everyone in Heaven.
I have a good friend who is a professor of Biblical history.
Hates Hell, hates Augustin's "original sin" (another big theological
blooper), and always says that the church keeps these
around because they are the easiest ways to get people to
come. And to pay. Why make the community relevant? Too much work.
Here in US you would have to go door to door and explain to people
why God matters, why the community matters, since people are so
well off that they do not readily see how they could possibly
benefit from it. In order to be effective in US, Christianity must fight
the extreme selfishness which resulted from the universal welfare.
But why do that? Much too easier is just scaring everyone with Hell.
It is a straightforward appeal to an egoist. I used to be skeptical about that,
but after years of arguing with him while visiting various churches I found that he
is absolutely right. Look at churches without hell, like
Mormons: they have a very strong community, which in itself is rewarding
enough for people to be a part of. Look also at churches
(even Catholic ones) in places where Christians are persecuted.
You will find that no one preaches Hell there. Hell just does
not sell alongside the Hell on Earth; but the loving community
in this life and the communion with God in the afterlife do.
[If you are wondering about my own beliefs, I am a heretic.]
Religion has by far been the most destructive motivational force
on the face of the planet.
How do you quantify this? Try replacing "religion" with "greed", "desire to be famous",
"desire to rule people", "sexual desire", "anger", or "sheer stupidity", and see if
you can somehow compare their respective "destructiveness". In actuality, people are
motivated by many things; every act can be motivated by some or all of the above.
Your statement is just an expression of a value.
I do not get it either. It is like admitting a drawing of trespassing.
"Here, your honor, you know that my testimony is true because I am a
professional painter."
Something tells me that if I produce screenshots and logs
of SONY hijacking my computer, I will be laughed out of court, even though they
are known hijackers.
Now you can commit crimes and not be held accountable.
and I no longer find myself interested in sexual activity.
You are now officially a member of the/. community. Look for your
geek card in the mail, two to four weeks from now.
my dog was brutally raped and murdered,
This is a hard one, but think about it.
He could have lived to be 20 years old, and you would
spend thousands of quids keeping him alive in the
special care facility. At least he did not see the
misery of the old age. And you did not become one of those
pussies who spend a fortune on a triple bypass for their
dog, while human kids keep dying because they cannot afford
generic drugs. It is all for the best, chum, all for the best.
Vista is the gods' gift to the mankind, is it not?
I disagree. Dell is a big, bureaucratic company. They probably had dozens of meetings where
they discussed this project, and will have dozens more to discuss its effects.
(If only because managers have to look busy, and it would be a real shame to
admit that the project was pointless.) A bunch of marketing folks are writing
executive summaries as we speak, and they are citing these statistics. Even
though we might not see a GNU/Linux Dell for years, you can safely bet that they
are at least discussing it now on every level of their product management.
The editors are feeding a troll again. Dell did not open this
forum to get educated about the freedom of speech. They wanted
people to tell them how they can "improve [their] products and services".
Pretty clear, is it not? An inflammatory comment about their
way of supporting GNU/Linux does not belong there. Read TFA, the author
makes it sound like Dell is spitting on the GNU/Linux community
by opting to (gasp) certify the hardware rather than install and support
some random distribution.
Nod. I do not see what the big issue is here. Sure, pre-installing beats
certifying, but the latter is not a "double-shunning of the linux community".
I would definitely go for a certified GNU/Linux computer without OS. That
is a big step forward compared to an uncertified PC with Windows. For one,
any recent enough distribution is almost guaranteed to pick up the hardware.
Secondly, it opens up a new market for distribution-specific installation/support
groups, which is how it is supposed to work in the free software world anyway.
No hardware manufacturer should be expected to support 30 different distributions
that are out there.
If RSA distributes a general-purpose decryption program using 3DES, then they'll be fine, even though it could be used against 3DES encrypted movies. If Doom9 does it, then they're not going to be fine, since they really only ever distribute anything for it to be used in conjunction with movies. That they might even be identical programs isn't relevant.
IIRC, you are a lawyer, so you are probably right in your assessment. And, I must confess, it simply blows my mind. In the words of Bart Simpson, "Who designed this house!?" If I understand it right, people can or cannot distribute code based on the intent of the distribution alone? Wow. Just wow.
Implementation of this specification requires a license from AACS LA LLC.
IANAL, but what the hell does that mean? There are only two
relevant "IP" laws: copyright and patent. Since the code is
original, copyright does not apply. Is AACS patented then?
Again, I have no idea what exactly the legislation is, but
I would assume that in most jurisdictions the law does not
apply to PCs. I am under an impression that there might be
a patent on a device with the said software, but that would
probably not apply to a general-purpose device which can run
any software.
-Why aren't you working?
-'Cuz there's nothing to do.
-Why won't you pretend to be working then?
-Why won't YOU pretend that I am working? You are paid more than me,
you fantasize.
That does not make sense to me. I would not expect a boy who spends
15 hours a day on the Internet to be the next MLK as the result of
his addiction. Nah, they just treat it as a disease
because of their strong collectivist inclinations. On their view,
people who are useless to the state should be re-educated; it may
be unpleasant to the individual, but the individual is nothing aprat
from the state.
Old communism and new communism still have one thing in common
Namely, they are both called "communism" despite the fact that
the countries that are spoken of are collectivist and authoritarian regimes,
usually dictatorships,
but falling short of that, oligarchies. Wake me up when there is
a major country with (1) but a single class and (2) the means of production
being equally shared among everyone.
Who can keep track of when these changes were made?
The burden would be on MS to show that they came up with the code first.
Unless they have some clear evidence, it is going to be their word vs.
Linus', and it is not going to go anywhere. Nah, the only viable attack
vector is the patent law.
You are lost in a twisty maze of APIs, all alike. It is dark. You are likely to be hit on the head by a chair thrown by a Grue.
look around
You find yourself in a small, low-level module with dark, twisted passages
leading to the West, East and South. The module is illuminated by a single
dim pixel; it flickers as if it can go out at any moment. There is a shut window
in the wall to the North.
open window
As soon as you start opening the window, it makes a screeching system call
that sends shivers down your spine. A security exception is summoned.
It is in Laws. The "second best" city state he describes there (Republic being
the best) is basically an amalgamation of the democratic principles known
at the time. The most interesting feature there, I think, is that every family
is required to grow food, i.e. the city is designed to be completely
self-sufficient and can, in principle, exist without slavery of any kind.
The algorithm isn't the software, it's a genuinely something that you have created. A real invention.
An algorithm is a finite sequence of unambiguous instructions. As such, it is analogous
to a formal proof of a mathematical statement, which is a finite sequence of propositions
expressed in the formal language, constructed from axioms in accordance with the rules
of inference. In mathematical logic, proofs themselves are mathematical objects. They
do exist, in a Platonic sense, just as integers exist. From a Platonic point of view,
we do not "invent" new integers, we merely talk about these objects which already exist
outside of our space and time.
Just as with formalization of proofs in the meta-theory, we can formalize the notion
of algorithm. The most famous treatment of this problem is the Turing Machine.
TM programs are algorithms in a very strict and formal sense. Each one is a finite
mathematical object. Each one corresponds to a mu-recursive function. Each one exists
in Heaven from the beginning of time.
A presentation of an algorithm, on the other hand, is not Platonic. It can be written
in English, for example, or in some programming language. It makes sense to copyright
the presentation, just as it makes sense to copyright a Calculus text book. It makes
no sense to patent it though, just as it makes no sense to patent the Intermediate Value
Theorem. These are not inventions but discoveries, and on that point we have an almost
unanimous agreement among practicing mathematicians and computer scientists.
Wikipedia says that algorithm is a "finite set of well-defined instructions".
It is different from "software", which is an implementation of some algorithm.
You can, for example, prove that an algorithm is correct, but you cannot do
the same for software since its correctness is sensitive to the limitations
of the actual computer (an easy illustration is the failure to allocate enough
memory), as well as compiler, interpreter, etc.
An algorithm does not just "boil down" to a mathematical object; it is,
strictly speaking, equivalent to some
mu-recursive function.
These are honest to god mathematical objects and patenting them makes no more sense
than patenting the Pythagorean theorem.
You are right, and I am confused here. It is not Republic, but could swear it is Plato.
I remember something about an ideal city state... You may not care, but I will come back
on that. Elsewhere, he describes an ideal city state with direct democracy and citizens who
have to be farmers, the whole shebang.
I am feeling chattery tonight. The reasons you give are the ones that are
usually given, but I am not convinced by them. One thing is for sure though:
not only there are no direct democracies anymore, there hardly has ever been any,
so we really have nothing to compare with.
it is much easier to go to war
USA, for example, has a
very
thick dossier. Soviet Union, one of the least democratic countries out there,
was a huge fan of a military action as well. Chinese states were warring
with each other for centuries, non-stop, all that time under kings.
Also in this system you are unable to enact positive yet possibly unpopular policy
You've listed the policies which did not hurt the elite. (Abolition
did, in the south, but the elite in the north stood to benefit from it.)
Instead, take a look at welfare policies, popular with the
lower classes and unpopular with the elite. Universal health care? Nonstarter.
Preventing violence in jails? Why bother. And more recently, free culture?
No profit there...
All in all, I am not really arguing with you, dude. I am just not convinced myself.
I think that a true direct democracy would be a fun thing to try, and may be
the Internet (as a communication device for the masses) is what was missing from
the list of ingredients.
I think that parliaments were set up by the elite because they wanted
to be in control and had an ability.
As for your proposal, it would indeed make any existing country more democratic;
but few (if any) countries were founded as true democracies. Many have some
degree of democratic participation, but it is widely believed, among
us serfs as well as among the elite, that a direct unbridled democracy
is about as good of a way to govern as setting the whole country on fire.
I, personally, think that it is worth a try, but I am not holding my breath.
True direct democracy was proposed at least since Plato (Republic), but,
to my best knowledge, has never been tried. (Do not bring up Athens,
they had two slaves for every citizen just in the city, and god only
knows how many serfs growing food for them outside the walls.)
Slashdot Mirror
You are right. In Christianity at least, the idea of Hell as a place of eternal torment is untenable. A good example appears below: amRadioHed destroys C.S. Lewis' "free will" argument in just two paragraphs. He is, in some people's view, the best of what the Catholic (Calvinist, whatever) church has to offer in terms of theology, and yet his argument is totally inane. You just cannot reconcile the notions of God being the benevolent, omnipotent designer who designs some souls to suffer forever... For what? For not appeasing God in some way? But he has no lack. There is no way to hurt God or to be in debt to him. He would not miss a penny, would not drop a single tear if he allowed everyone in Heaven.
I have a good friend who is a professor of Biblical history. Hates Hell, hates Augustin's "original sin" (another big theological blooper), and always says that the church keeps these around because they are the easiest ways to get people to come. And to pay. Why make the community relevant? Too much work. Here in US you would have to go door to door and explain to people why God matters, why the community matters, since people are so well off that they do not readily see how they could possibly benefit from it. In order to be effective in US, Christianity must fight the extreme selfishness which resulted from the universal welfare. But why do that? Much too easier is just scaring everyone with Hell. It is a straightforward appeal to an egoist. I used to be skeptical about that, but after years of arguing with him while visiting various churches I found that he is absolutely right. Look at churches without hell, like Mormons: they have a very strong community, which in itself is rewarding enough for people to be a part of. Look also at churches (even Catholic ones) in places where Christians are persecuted. You will find that no one preaches Hell there. Hell just does not sell alongside the Hell on Earth; but the loving community in this life and the communion with God in the afterlife do.
[If you are wondering about my own beliefs, I am a heretic.]
How do you quantify this? Try replacing "religion" with "greed", "desire to be famous", "desire to rule people", "sexual desire", "anger", or "sheer stupidity", and see if you can somehow compare their respective "destructiveness". In actuality, people are motivated by many things; every act can be motivated by some or all of the above. Your statement is just an expression of a value.
I do not get it either. It is like admitting a drawing of trespassing. "Here, your honor, you know that my testimony is true because I am a professional painter."
Something tells me that if I produce screenshots and logs of SONY hijacking my computer, I will be laughed out of court, even though they are known hijackers.
You are now officially a member of the /. community. Look for your
geek card in the mail, two to four weeks from now.
This is a hard one, but think about it. He could have lived to be 20 years old, and you would spend thousands of quids keeping him alive in the special care facility. At least he did not see the misery of the old age. And you did not become one of those pussies who spend a fortune on a triple bypass for their dog, while human kids keep dying because they cannot afford generic drugs. It is all for the best, chum, all for the best.
Vista is the gods' gift to the mankind, is it not?
But you see, it is not really about "cyber", it is all about "pipe dream". In fact, forget about cyber cafe, just pass over that pipe...
Or... Borg?!?
I disagree. Dell is a big, bureaucratic company. They probably had dozens of meetings where they discussed this project, and will have dozens more to discuss its effects. (If only because managers have to look busy, and it would be a real shame to admit that the project was pointless.) A bunch of marketing folks are writing executive summaries as we speak, and they are citing these statistics. Even though we might not see a GNU/Linux Dell for years, you can safely bet that they are at least discussing it now on every level of their product management.
The editors are feeding a troll again. Dell did not open this forum to get educated about the freedom of speech. They wanted people to tell them how they can "improve [their] products and services". Pretty clear, is it not? An inflammatory comment about their way of supporting GNU/Linux does not belong there. Read TFA, the author makes it sound like Dell is spitting on the GNU/Linux community by opting to (gasp) certify the hardware rather than install and support some random distribution.
Nod. I do not see what the big issue is here. Sure, pre-installing beats certifying, but the latter is not a "double-shunning of the linux community". I would definitely go for a certified GNU/Linux computer without OS. That is a big step forward compared to an uncertified PC with Windows. For one, any recent enough distribution is almost guaranteed to pick up the hardware. Secondly, it opens up a new market for distribution-specific installation/support groups, which is how it is supposed to work in the free software world anyway. No hardware manufacturer should be expected to support 30 different distributions that are out there.
IIRC, you are a lawyer, so you are probably right in your assessment. And, I must confess, it simply blows my mind. In the words of Bart Simpson, "Who designed this house!?" If I understand it right, people can or cannot distribute code based on the intent of the distribution alone? Wow. Just wow.
I thought that the program itself is just a generic implementation of AACS decryption. It is no more of a circumvention device than gzip.
IANAL, but what the hell does that mean? There are only two relevant "IP" laws: copyright and patent. Since the code is original, copyright does not apply. Is AACS patented then? Again, I have no idea what exactly the legislation is, but I would assume that in most jurisdictions the law does not apply to PCs. I am under an impression that there might be a patent on a device with the said software, but that would probably not apply to a general-purpose device which can run any software.
Bill Hicks put it best:
-Why aren't you working?
-'Cuz there's nothing to do.
-Why won't you pretend to be working then?
-Why won't YOU pretend that I am working? You are paid more than me, you fantasize.
That does not make sense to me. I would not expect a boy who spends 15 hours a day on the Internet to be the next MLK as the result of his addiction. Nah, they just treat it as a disease because of their strong collectivist inclinations. On their view, people who are useless to the state should be re-educated; it may be unpleasant to the individual, but the individual is nothing aprat from the state.
I agree. Look at the parent post, for example.
I cannot believe they omitted the Guns And Dope party.
The burden would be on MS to show that they came up with the code first. Unless they have some clear evidence, it is going to be their word vs. Linus', and it is not going to go anywhere. Nah, the only viable attack vector is the patent law.
It is in Laws. The "second best" city state he describes there (Republic being the best) is basically an amalgamation of the democratic principles known at the time. The most interesting feature there, I think, is that every family is required to grow food, i.e. the city is designed to be completely self-sufficient and can, in principle, exist without slavery of any kind.
An algorithm is a finite sequence of unambiguous instructions. As such, it is analogous to a formal proof of a mathematical statement, which is a finite sequence of propositions expressed in the formal language, constructed from axioms in accordance with the rules of inference. In mathematical logic, proofs themselves are mathematical objects. They do exist, in a Platonic sense, just as integers exist. From a Platonic point of view, we do not "invent" new integers, we merely talk about these objects which already exist outside of our space and time.
Just as with formalization of proofs in the meta-theory, we can formalize the notion of algorithm. The most famous treatment of this problem is the Turing Machine. TM programs are algorithms in a very strict and formal sense. Each one is a finite mathematical object. Each one corresponds to a mu-recursive function. Each one exists in Heaven from the beginning of time.
A presentation of an algorithm, on the other hand, is not Platonic. It can be written in English, for example, or in some programming language. It makes sense to copyright the presentation, just as it makes sense to copyright a Calculus text book. It makes no sense to patent it though, just as it makes no sense to patent the Intermediate Value Theorem. These are not inventions but discoveries, and on that point we have an almost unanimous agreement among practicing mathematicians and computer scientists.
Wikipedia says that algorithm is a "finite set of well-defined instructions". It is different from "software", which is an implementation of some algorithm. You can, for example, prove that an algorithm is correct, but you cannot do the same for software since its correctness is sensitive to the limitations of the actual computer (an easy illustration is the failure to allocate enough memory), as well as compiler, interpreter, etc.
An algorithm does not just "boil down" to a mathematical object; it is, strictly speaking, equivalent to some mu-recursive function. These are honest to god mathematical objects and patenting them makes no more sense than patenting the Pythagorean theorem.
You are right, and I am confused here. It is not Republic, but could swear it is Plato. I remember something about an ideal city state... You may not care, but I will come back on that. Elsewhere, he describes an ideal city state with direct democracy and citizens who have to be farmers, the whole shebang.
This should be modded informative.
I am feeling chattery tonight. The reasons you give are the ones that are usually given, but I am not convinced by them. One thing is for sure though: not only there are no direct democracies anymore, there hardly has ever been any, so we really have nothing to compare with.
USA, for example, has a very thick dossier. Soviet Union, one of the least democratic countries out there, was a huge fan of a military action as well. Chinese states were warring with each other for centuries, non-stop, all that time under kings.You've listed the policies which did not hurt the elite. (Abolition did, in the south, but the elite in the north stood to benefit from it.) Instead, take a look at welfare policies, popular with the lower classes and unpopular with the elite. Universal health care? Nonstarter. Preventing violence in jails? Why bother. And more recently, free culture? No profit there...
All in all, I am not really arguing with you, dude. I am just not convinced myself. I think that a true direct democracy would be a fun thing to try, and may be the Internet (as a communication device for the masses) is what was missing from the list of ingredients.
I think that parliaments were set up by the elite because they wanted to be in control and had an ability.
As for your proposal, it would indeed make any existing country more democratic; but few (if any) countries were founded as true democracies. Many have some degree of democratic participation, but it is widely believed, among us serfs as well as among the elite, that a direct unbridled democracy is about as good of a way to govern as setting the whole country on fire. I, personally, think that it is worth a try, but I am not holding my breath.
True direct democracy was proposed at least since Plato (Republic), but, to my best knowledge, has never been tried. (Do not bring up Athens, they had two slaves for every citizen just in the city, and god only knows how many serfs growing food for them outside the walls.)