Maybe after the fighting in the Stallman article, Slashdot wanted to post something so shitty, its readers would have no choice but to band together against it.
The command line is not coming back, especially with more applications moving to mobile devices where typing is just a hassle. The CLI will remain a nerd's tool. That's just reality.
No, it's not about Stallman, the messenger. It's about why the messenger was right. It's about the message, and how that message's prediction has been shown accurate.
He already addressed that point. Free software wouldn't have stopped the current behavior of the government.
Stallman hasn't been "paranoid about everything". He has been scared of the abuse of people by closed software, and his fears now are being proven justified.
Stallman absolutely is paranoid about everything. He doesn't use web browsers, for crying out loud, not even open source ones! He genuinely thinks all closed software is "evil," and he uses that religious terminology to describe it.
His other views, even on child pornography, are irrelevant to that. Because we're not interested in Stallman; we're interested in what he said that was (and is) right. Because he was among the first to say it, was right about it despite widespread ridicule and even condemnation, and what he's right about is important.
But he's not right. Free software wouldn't have prevented the government abuse we're seeing. As for his child pornography views, I think it's pretty relevant when an article is trying to prop up Stallman as some misunderstood prophet. Stallman takes an extremist view, and what this article is trying to do is take one single thing and validate his entire philosophy with it.
"Dubya has nominated another caveman for a federal appeals court. Refreshingly, the Democratic Party is organizing opposition.
The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."
Stallman's general utter lunacy isn't a legitimate test of the validity of any specific argument he makes.
But it is a legitimate test of the validity of his philosophy as a whole. If you know a crazy person, and he has one of his predictions validated, are you supposed to suddenly embrace all of his ideas? Because that's what the article is about, that Stallman was right all along about everything and that all of his detractors should be ignored because Obama signed this piece of legislation.
Look at this--not a refutation of ANYTHING in the submission. Just angry accusations and a demand that Slashdot not post anymore news that's bad about Google. And it gets +5 Informative!
Symbolset, like other Google fans who post here, wants Slashdot to post nothing but good news about companies he likes and bad news about companies he hates. He wants Slashdot to pat him on the shoulder for having a certain position.
What a weird post. You're trying to be sarcastic, but everything you posted is true--if bathrooms are going unused, there's no reason to have so many, and if the building is low-traffic, there's no reason to have huge hallways. Unfortunately, applying the point of the OP, if the government mandated that you had to have so many bathrooms and a minimum hallway width based on the size of your business regardless if the space is actually used by anyone, you don't have a say.
1.) Why should the mall/shopping center be mandated by the government to do that on its private property? 2.) It's not about having to walk farther. 3.) It's obviously not that useful if the vast majority of them are empty 24 hours a day because the government requires a minimum number based on the business size. 4.) Being thankful about that is irrelevant to the argument.
Businesses will offer spaces to the handicapped on their own because it's good for business. They don't need a government mandate or the installation of hidden sensors so the government can file tickets and collect another revenue source.
I don't think I can take your argument seriously if you're going to use emotion-based criticism like "control freak assholes that want to tell people how to use their device." Your attitude is exactly what I posted about elsewhere in this discussion, a self-absorbed sort of anti-authority tantrum that lashes out at any reduction in configurability even though the majority of consumers don't want the kind of configurability you seek. For some reason, you take it personally, as if someone at Apple is literally twirling their mustache, laughing evilly, and deciding that hedwards on Slashdot shouldn't be able to install whatever functionality he wants on his device.
The software approval process is the same kind that has been used for decades on game consoles, to great effect. Game consoles are now the dominant medium for gaming, with PC gaming becoming a marginal niche.
I think you don't realize that you're arguing my point.:) You refer to processing of the information as a different solution to the problem than reducing the amount of information, and I'm saying that the processing you're referring to is actually a filtering of the information in order to reduce the amount of it.
You nailed it in the second paragraph--the existence of 10,000,000 sites doesn't cause us anxiety because we will never bother with the other sites. For all practical purposes, to the majority of Google users, the only sites that exist are the ones on the front page, and so the 10,000,000 choices have been effectively reduced.
Note that this same process of quality vetting is also what goes on in an approval-based app store.
I use a free implementation of the Stanfard PwdHash algorithm for the Mac called Locksmith (here on the app store). There are also websites that implement PwdHash, and even a Firefox add-on. By changing one master password, all the passwords I generate will automatically be changed when I regenerate them.
Apple doesn't want unnecessary duplication of system functionality because that creates redundancy and confusion in the experience of using the device; for instance, it prevents developers from mimicking the operating system and potentially tricking the user. It should be noted that such prohibitions are very rare, and there are a number of apps that compete with built-in applications, such as third-party web browsers.
I'm not sure if the best answer to the paradox of choice is to remove choice and configurability. For example, newegg offers a ton of deals for buying certain combinations of hardware, and when there are 231 possible deals for your CPU, it's not feasible to try and sort through that. The answer wouldn't be to stop those deals, but rather, to make it easier to process all that information.
People don't want to process the information for 231 possible CPU deals. The easiest way to deal with that kind of information is to not process it all, removing configurability and therefore the psychological fear of a missed opportunity. It's been shown in several studies that too many choices hinders the decision-making process and leads to decreased happiness, which was the subject of the book I linked by psychologist Barry Schwartz.
One might have argued at one point that there are too many websites on the internet, but the solution to that wasn't to reduce the number of websites, but to create good search engines that let us make sense of it all.
It goes without saying that the sites on the first page of the search results get the vast majority of hits. Nobody wants to sift through the 10,000,000+ hits a Google search gives you. It's an impressive number but ultimately meaningless in terms of how most people use a search engine.
Unfortunately, a race to the bottom will always result in a lower-quality experience. It doesn't seem worth it for the compromises made. Amusingly, devices like this get figured into the amorphous statistic of "Android marketshare" in countless forum operating system arguments.
I think that too often, people confuse freedom with configurability when it comes to software. You can have freedom without driving away users with making them suffer the paradox of choice, and at the same time, much of lack of configurability in popular devices today isn't really a lack of a freedom, at least it's not seen that way to mainstream users. Techies often just label it a lack of freedom because they can't do absolutely everything they want.
I read the transcript, and by the time he started saying things like this:
So today we have marketing departments who say things like "we don't need computers, we need... appliances. Make me a computer that doesn't run every program, just a program that does this specialized task, like streaming audio, or routing packets, or playing Xbox games, and make sure it doesn't run programs that I haven't authorized that might undermine our profits". And on the surface, this seems like a reasonable idea -- just a program that does one specialized task -- after all, we can put an electric motor in a blender, and we can install a motor in a dishwasher, and we don't worry if it's still possible to run a dishwashing program in a blender. But that's not what we do when we turn a computer into an appliance. We're not making a computer that runs only the "appliance" app; we're making a computer that can run every program, but which uses some combination of rootkits, spyware, and code-signing to prevent the user from knowing which processes are running, from installing her own software, and from terminating processes that she doesn't want. In other words, an appliance is not a stripped-down computer -- it is a fully functional computer with spyware on it out of the box.
I'm immediately reminded of countless Slashdot posts decrying the rise of appliance computing and lamenting the industry's move away from "general-purpose computing." That phrase is actually a euphemism for "nerd playground made by nerds for nerds," because that is what is actually being missed. Nerds feel power when they invest time and master a system, but non-nerds have neither the time nor desire to make computing a hobby. To them, computers are simply a means to get a job done, and that's the extent of their interest.
Doctorow argues that an appliance computer isn't a specialized computing device but a general-purpose computer running "spyware." This is a highly politicized perspective to take. But more importantly, it signifies a perspective that's out of touch with mainstream people; i.e., non-techies. Non-techies aren't interested in installing custom software or knowing what processes are running or uncovering their technological secrets. Those are things only techies care about.
Doctorow conflates this lament for nerd power with a lot of talk about copyright, DRM, and that all-important buzzword, "freedom." Not only does it make techies feel powerful to have mastery over the system, but it makes them feel important if they believe that their hobby is not just a lone expenditure of free time but the actions of a freedom fighter. However, I believe this is a confusion of issues. Appliance computing and DRM are necessarily not intertwined (look at the DRM-free iTunes Music Store), and appliance computing is just a derogatory (among nerds, anyway) term for an accessible product that most people can use. That such accessibility often necessitates the removal of configurability is simply unfortunate and incidental.
Stick-shift automobiles are generally more efficient gas-wise because you are able to directly control the gears used to move the vehicle, but most people today drive automatics. They don't want to mess with things, or tweak things, or dissect things. The car is a tool, and that is also true of computers.
Doctorow ends the talk with this:
We have been fighting the mini-boss, and that means that great challenges are yet to come, but like all good level designers, fate has sent us a soft target to train ourselves on -- we have a chance, a real chance, and if we support open and free systems, and the organizations that fight for them -- EFF, Bits of Freedom [?], Edrie [?], [?], Nets Politique [?], La Quadrature du Net, and all the others, who are thankfully, too numerous to name here -- we may yet win the battle, and secure the ammunition we'll need for the war.
Disregarding the pandering videogame terminology for a moment, this is a perfe
Silent? Uhm, they sent an email explaining that THEY removed it and way.
AFTER they removed it, without any prior warning.
Are you seriously trying to use twitter as an example for your side of the argument? Seriously?
Uh, why wouldn't I? Twitter is the second most popular social network beneath Facebook and a major competitor to Google+. Do you have a legitimate response here or are you just going to repeat "seriously" a bunch of times, thinking that it's a valid argument?
Google always makes a big deal about how it tries not to remove links and how it refuses to comply with requests from the Chinese government. Google+ has already given you the tools to filter reality to fit your moral values, through the use of the block feature. They don't need to silently go into your account and delete your middle finger. Which, by the way, Twitter allows in its avatars.
Nobody said it was a law or that it wasn't the right of a private business to make that decision. Nobody said it was legally wrong. People often resort to your counterargument ("They have the right!") when they can't respond to the moral criticism being made.
Your talk of puppeting the law is, frankly, bizarre and completely out of nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe after the fighting in the Stallman article, Slashdot wanted to post something so shitty, its readers would have no choice but to band together against it.
Who is "we?" Who are the fanboys you're referring to? Do you have a specific example to clarify what you're talking about?
The command line is not coming back, especially with more applications moving to mobile devices where typing is just a hassle. The CLI will remain a nerd's tool. That's just reality.
He already addressed that point. Free software wouldn't have stopped the current behavior of the government.
Stallman absolutely is paranoid about everything. He doesn't use web browsers, for crying out loud, not even open source ones! He genuinely thinks all closed software is "evil," and he uses that religious terminology to describe it.
But he's not right. Free software wouldn't have prevented the government abuse we're seeing. As for his child pornography views, I think it's pretty relevant when an article is trying to prop up Stallman as some misunderstood prophet. Stallman takes an extremist view, and what this article is trying to do is take one single thing and validate his entire philosophy with it.
How did you get +5 Insightful? Allow me to quote RMS from his own blog on June 28, 2003:
"Dubya has nominated another caveman for a federal appeals court. Refreshingly, the Democratic Party is organizing opposition.
The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."
But it is a legitimate test of the validity of his philosophy as a whole. If you know a crazy person, and he has one of his predictions validated, are you supposed to suddenly embrace all of his ideas? Because that's what the article is about, that Stallman was right all along about everything and that all of his detractors should be ignored because Obama signed this piece of legislation.
Look at this--not a refutation of ANYTHING in the submission. Just angry accusations and a demand that Slashdot not post anymore news that's bad about Google. And it gets +5 Informative!
Symbolset, like other Google fans who post here, wants Slashdot to post nothing but good news about companies he likes and bad news about companies he hates. He wants Slashdot to pat him on the shoulder for having a certain position.
What a load of CRAP.
You really created a new account just to post this? "Half of Slashdot" doesn't mean your puppet accounts.
What a weird post. You're trying to be sarcastic, but everything you posted is true--if bathrooms are going unused, there's no reason to have so many, and if the building is low-traffic, there's no reason to have huge hallways. Unfortunately, applying the point of the OP, if the government mandated that you had to have so many bathrooms and a minimum hallway width based on the size of your business regardless if the space is actually used by anyone, you don't have a say.
1.) Why should the mall/shopping center be mandated by the government to do that on its private property?
2.) It's not about having to walk farther.
3.) It's obviously not that useful if the vast majority of them are empty 24 hours a day because the government requires a minimum number based on the business size.
4.) Being thankful about that is irrelevant to the argument.
Businesses will offer spaces to the handicapped on their own because it's good for business. They don't need a government mandate or the installation of hidden sensors so the government can file tickets and collect another revenue source.
Did you know there was a drop in employment of the handicapped after the ADA was signed into law? This stuff doesn't work.
It's just another revenue source; the government wants to easily collect more $250 fines. Here's hoping it does not work and does not go global.
Out of curiosity, if your mother has difficulty walking, why isn't she using a wheelchair?
This is about Android.
"Apple iBaulbes"...check.
"fscking"...check.
"Linux/FLOSS"...check.
"Jeebus"...check.
Ayn Rand quote in sig...check.
Are you some kind of Linux stereotype character actor?
I don't think I can take your argument seriously if you're going to use emotion-based criticism like "control freak assholes that want to tell people how to use their device." Your attitude is exactly what I posted about elsewhere in this discussion, a self-absorbed sort of anti-authority tantrum that lashes out at any reduction in configurability even though the majority of consumers don't want the kind of configurability you seek. For some reason, you take it personally, as if someone at Apple is literally twirling their mustache, laughing evilly, and deciding that hedwards on Slashdot shouldn't be able to install whatever functionality he wants on his device.
The software approval process is the same kind that has been used for decades on game consoles, to great effect. Game consoles are now the dominant medium for gaming, with PC gaming becoming a marginal niche.
I think you don't realize that you're arguing my point. :) You refer to processing of the information as a different solution to the problem than reducing the amount of information, and I'm saying that the processing you're referring to is actually a filtering of the information in order to reduce the amount of it.
You nailed it in the second paragraph--the existence of 10,000,000 sites doesn't cause us anxiety because we will never bother with the other sites. For all practical purposes, to the majority of Google users, the only sites that exist are the ones on the front page, and so the 10,000,000 choices have been effectively reduced.
Note that this same process of quality vetting is also what goes on in an approval-based app store.
I use a free implementation of the Stanfard PwdHash algorithm for the Mac called Locksmith (here on the app store). There are also websites that implement PwdHash, and even a Firefox add-on. By changing one master password, all the passwords I generate will automatically be changed when I regenerate them.
Apple doesn't want unnecessary duplication of system functionality because that creates redundancy and confusion in the experience of using the device; for instance, it prevents developers from mimicking the operating system and potentially tricking the user. It should be noted that such prohibitions are very rare, and there are a number of apps that compete with built-in applications, such as third-party web browsers.
People don't want to process the information for 231 possible CPU deals. The easiest way to deal with that kind of information is to not process it all, removing configurability and therefore the psychological fear of a missed opportunity. It's been shown in several studies that too many choices hinders the decision-making process and leads to decreased happiness, which was the subject of the book I linked by psychologist Barry Schwartz.
It goes without saying that the sites on the first page of the search results get the vast majority of hits. Nobody wants to sift through the 10,000,000+ hits a Google search gives you. It's an impressive number but ultimately meaningless in terms of how most people use a search engine.
Unfortunately, a race to the bottom will always result in a lower-quality experience. It doesn't seem worth it for the compromises made. Amusingly, devices like this get figured into the amorphous statistic of "Android marketshare" in countless forum operating system arguments.
I think that too often, people confuse freedom with configurability when it comes to software. You can have freedom without driving away users with making them suffer the paradox of choice, and at the same time, much of lack of configurability in popular devices today isn't really a lack of a freedom, at least it's not seen that way to mainstream users. Techies often just label it a lack of freedom because they can't do absolutely everything they want.
I read the transcript, and by the time he started saying things like this:
I'm immediately reminded of countless Slashdot posts decrying the rise of appliance computing and lamenting the industry's move away from "general-purpose computing." That phrase is actually a euphemism for "nerd playground made by nerds for nerds," because that is what is actually being missed. Nerds feel power when they invest time and master a system, but non-nerds have neither the time nor desire to make computing a hobby. To them, computers are simply a means to get a job done, and that's the extent of their interest.
Doctorow argues that an appliance computer isn't a specialized computing device but a general-purpose computer running "spyware." This is a highly politicized perspective to take. But more importantly, it signifies a perspective that's out of touch with mainstream people; i.e., non-techies. Non-techies aren't interested in installing custom software or knowing what processes are running or uncovering their technological secrets. Those are things only techies care about.
Doctorow conflates this lament for nerd power with a lot of talk about copyright, DRM, and that all-important buzzword, "freedom." Not only does it make techies feel powerful to have mastery over the system, but it makes them feel important if they believe that their hobby is not just a lone expenditure of free time but the actions of a freedom fighter. However, I believe this is a confusion of issues. Appliance computing and DRM are necessarily not intertwined (look at the DRM-free iTunes Music Store), and appliance computing is just a derogatory (among nerds, anyway) term for an accessible product that most people can use. That such accessibility often necessitates the removal of configurability is simply unfortunate and incidental.
Stick-shift automobiles are generally more efficient gas-wise because you are able to directly control the gears used to move the vehicle, but most people today drive automatics. They don't want to mess with things, or tweak things, or dissect things. The car is a tool, and that is also true of computers.
Doctorow ends the talk with this:
Disregarding the pandering videogame terminology for a moment, this is a perfe
AFTER they removed it, without any prior warning.
Uh, why wouldn't I? Twitter is the second most popular social network beneath Facebook and a major competitor to Google+. Do you have a legitimate response here or are you just going to repeat "seriously" a bunch of times, thinking that it's a valid argument?
Google always makes a big deal about how it tries not to remove links and how it refuses to comply with requests from the Chinese government. Google+ has already given you the tools to filter reality to fit your moral values, through the use of the block feature. They don't need to silently go into your account and delete your middle finger. Which, by the way, Twitter allows in its avatars.
Nobody said it was a law or that it wasn't the right of a private business to make that decision. Nobody said it was legally wrong. People often resort to your counterargument ("They have the right!") when they can't respond to the moral criticism being made.
Your talk of puppeting the law is, frankly, bizarre and completely out of nowhere.