The GPL does not trap anyone. Everyone that accepts the license accepts it; everyone that does not accept the license, well, carries on with his/her life. You cannot accidentally or unwillingly accept the license. Were you forcefully coerced to release code under the GPL, essentially any sane court would rule that the licensing would be invalid.
I honestly fail to see how one can describe the GPL as a trap of any kind.
You imagine I'm implying that? That was explicitly my point!
You should have your sarcasm detector checked: it seems not to be working.
The goal of the GPL started as simplicity, and over time it's been evolving into a scheme to trap developers, distributors and users of libraries. The great-grandparent's point illustrates it perfectly, even if he blames the wrong party.
There is no scheme to trap anyone: it is quite simple: if you do not want to accept the conditions I impose on my code, then write your own. If you are not willing to comply with my licence for my library, then do not use it. It is not that hard, really...
How on earth can that be construed as a scheme to trap anyone? And how is it different from anything else (apart from the fact that the GPL allow the party accepting it to do things that party would otherwise be not allowed to do)?
Yeah, except that if you RTFA, you'll see that this is not a "piracy is killing music" stab; not at all. It is about people now making cold electronic music in their bedrooms rather than going out, getting together with other musicians and feed off each other creativity to make truly great music.
Absurd copyright laws probably have a much bigger share of the guilt in hindering people's feeding off each other's creativity...
I read the news about every country that has fallen victim to excessive privatization: the U.S. and Iraq. Socialism is old news.
Well, my point was precisely that if you think that "every country that has fallen victim to excessive privatization" means the U.S. ad Irq, then you really, really, really, need to read a bit more about the issue.
That's what they said four years ago about the private sector in Iraq. And privatization turned out to be inferior there to socialism in every way, even as implemented by a buffoon like Saddam Hussein: Socialism 1, Privatization 0. That really opened my eyes to the intellectual bankruptcy of this decades-old canard, that the public sector needs dismantlement and the private sector deserves to be worshiped.
Wow. That opened your eyes? I guess you do not read much news about any country anywhere on this planet...
I have no idea what the GP thinks about this, but I for one think technology, politics and pretty much any other matter deserves and needs to be made fun of. Anything that's worth taking seriously needs to be made fun of.
The most dangerous people are those that take serious things seriously.
I am not bitter. I should probably know better by now and not expect much more than `arguments' based on personal attacks (with the added fun that it is quite impossible to make a personal attackon someone you do not know at all, like you do not know me!) around here:(
Mathematics is a cooperative enterprise and no one would be able to do anything without being able to make copious use of the work of others. This has always been like that, but nowadays, the economic aspect of copying and distribution being essentially done with (I met a guy who, we can say, is two mathematician-generations before me, who, in his youth, went to Paris for a while and he spent there most of his time making handwritten copies of papers in the library of the Paris University!) this is much more so. Looking at the arXiv makes that apparent. This is better for all involved and it is better for society as a whole. Globally, too.
Literature, music and other artistic activities used to be pretty much the same, but in contrast with what's happened in maths, this has not become more so. Not at all. While it is true that good literature, good music and so on are still being done, there is a coherent argument that points to the fact that it could be much better. That society not only has not benefited as much as it could, but that is has actually lost.
Essentially eternal copyrights do not benefit society.
And pretending that Hendrix, Paganini or other great people did what they did because the cared for being able to hold copyrights for their work 50 years after they would die is, well, silly.
Well, I did not become a musician but I became a mathematician. I've been studying and working my ass off for the last 15 years. And I can surely tell you my choice was not motivated by the prospects of collecting copyright on my works 50 years after my death...
That's a plan for success: have all apps implement a simple feature which belongs conceptually to the window manager. That way, you'll get one implementation per app, withs its peculiar interface, location in the menus, keyboard shortcuts and quirks. Great!
If you read what the GGP wrote, you'll see that that is not what he said. He said: "Suggesting that the war must have been solely motivated by greed is a circumstantial ad hom."
The significant part of that is must. He supposed the word "must" into the sentence which means that despite the reasons, it is greed. This is the correct usage. And the reference to the president is what this comment is ultimately about. He is referring to, or at least in the progression of the conversation as I seen it, that people are shooting the messenger with attacking them for their greed instead of actually consulting the reasons. War for oil is a prime example, It does nothing to the claims for why and imposed their own claims in the process.
Well, as I said before, I cannot do anything if you fail to see the point that I tried to make, more than provide the explanation I already gave.
While the Wikipedia page for Ad Hominen could certainly take a general make-over to make it clearer, more precise and so on, the actual description of the phallacy is correct. You seem to miss that.
No, I didn't miss it, I didn't even look at it. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for accurate information. I believe that is what I said and then cited reasons for it. It is no different then me writing something down and claiming it was correct to support my position. I wasn't making any claims to the accuracy of the definition, just that I wouldn't use that as a source except as a starting place to look elsewhere.
In other words, you are shooting the messanger;-)
Well, the general accuracy of Wikipedia as a primary source, as a secondary source, as a starting place or anything else is quite irrelevant, when one is discussing the correctness of a description of what an ad hominem argumentation is. Wikipedia can be the worst source ever and still provide the correct description. And it does.
If you are, for some reason, discussing the reliability of Wikipedia, then I have just to pull myself from the conversation, as I am not discussing that. Before doing that, I'd suggest that when you do argue that Wipipedia is not a reliable source, you do not use the article on Ad hominem argumentation as an example of incorrectness.
Finally, I mentioned Wikipedia because that's probably available to the person I was responding to. I have a copy of Aristotle's Organum at home, and I think that'd make for a much more authoritative source in his/her view and in yours (not in mine, actually) but I would think assuming people have a copy of the Organum at hand while reading Slashdot is a bit off-base. Any reasonable good book on logic and argumentation would do just as well, though.
You would be correct in assuming I don't have that book. I cannot speak for the other person. However, from the sources I have availible, I believe it was the correct usage in the context it was used in. Again, I stress the importance on the word must.
even more to the point, the op was correct in this usage. The president and members of the country out forth compeling reasons for war and the blaming it on greed crowd is attempting to attacked the creditability of the people in question in order to make a claim that their reasons are invalid. This is the ever definition of ad hominem.
If you read what the GGP wrote, you'll see that that is not what he said. He said: "Suggesting that the war must have been solely motivated by greed is a circumstantial ad hom."
An ad hominem argumentation would be something along the lines of "because they are people that are usually motivated by greed (and therefore evil) this thing they did (wage war) is wrong". It is a completely different thing to say that "because they did this thing (wage war) solely motivated by greed, then what they did is wrong." In the first case, you are trying to base rejection of the actions on the persons that carried them; in the second, on their motivations to carry them. If you cannot tell the two apart, well, I can't do much about it.
Another clear example of an ad hominem argument is provided by your own post:
I'm not sure Wikipedia is an accurate source of anything except a starting point in additional research. So much on that site is wrong, loaded and manipulated towards agendas it isn't funny. Then you have the entire issue of the Harvard professor who lived in mom's basement in KY.
Here you are not arguing against the definition provided by Wikipedia for ad hominem argumentation. Instead, you are saying that, because Wikipedia is not an accurate source all the time and it gets things wrong all the time, and beause it is filled with agendas and some wikipedian turned out to live in his mom's basement, then the description it provides for what an ad hominem argument is wrong.
While the Wikipedia page for Ad Hominen could certainly take a general make-over to make it clearer, more precise and so on, the actual description of the phallacy is correct. You seem to miss that.
Finally, I mentioned Wikipedia because that's probably available to the person I was responding to. I have a copy of Aristotle's Organum at home, and I think that'd make for a much more authoritative source in his/her view and in yours (not in mine, actually) but I would think assuming people have a copy of the Organum at hand while reading Slashdot is a bit off-base. Any reasonable good book on logic and argumentation would do just as well, though.
Hmm. You are judging the events with the perspective that `he was doing stuff so that Busg can look bad', when actual people, lots and lots of them! (and not only US soldiers...) have been killed as a consequence of what happened. I would imagine Bush could withstand some badmouthing, specially if it came from someone with such a low standing in everyone's view as Saddam, don't you think?
Am I the only one who sees the stupidity of these politics? Saddam is propped up like Bernie from weekend at Bernie's, a rotten corpse, to show how bad a guy bush is.... I honestly, and really, believe that clinton or gore or mccain or whoever would have made the same decisions. I really don't see any of these guys being better than anyone else, and that's what gets me. They are all equivalent to godfathers -- men with power deciding life and death on a whim as it suits them.
I do not think that all would have taken the same decisions. Not at all. Pretending there are no real differences is probably the biggest mistake one can make in judging political events.
A tyrant is bad no matter what, and although all of these guys could be described as much, saddam was a real case. It's like describing that really hairy man with the really big beard among the troops of a civil war army (psst, they all had beards). Saddam was heads and shoulders above the rest.
The problem is, that he was a tyrant (which he was, of course) was of no real consequence in the events that occurred. There are many other tyrants and there have been many more (I lived in a country under an US-sponsored set of tyrants---less `colorful' but not a bit less deadly than Saddam---for example, and we are still trying to get the catastrophic and dramatic outcome of it all out of our minds). It is absurd not only in view of what eventually actually occurred but it was also absurd at the time these events were in the making, to pretend that the motivations were not very much others than removing a tyrant.
Even if one wants to argue that at least there is one less tyrant around, one can to take into account the complete picture. In terms of global security, the well-being of iraqi people, the stability of the middle east... I'd say, in terms of any minimally reason criterion, the situation is much worse that before.
Using his corpse to bash bush is stupid. No matter what, if were still here, left alone and in power, the dude WOULD have kept building and WOULD have used whatever he got his hands on -- he always did....
But, folks -- especially here -- really seem to get off on the bush bashing, so, have at it. Just remember, the next dude -- no matter what party he's from (or dudette) will be the same thing man. It's the same thing all over again.
I could not be less interested in bashing Bush. He is, and has been for quite a while now, nothing more than a historical circumstance. The thing I have a problem with is the way events have come to pass, the way people have reacted to them, and the absolute certainty that this same stupid plot can and, probably, will happen again.
Pierre Bourdieu, a sociologist, wrote somewhere that there is nothing more subversive than understanding how things came to be and to happen, because being aware of that carries the knowledge that things might have been different.
Bashing Bush is stupid, because he is already history. Understanding how he came to be and do what he did (at least, what he was the visible head of) is quite important.
I guess you have to 40 before you stop believing in politicians....
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL does not trap anyone. Everyone that accepts the license accepts it; everyone that does not accept the license, well, carries on with his/her life. You cannot accidentally or unwillingly accept the license. Were you forcefully coerced to release code under the GPL, essentially any sane court would rule that the licensing would be invalid.
I honestly fail to see how one can describe the GPL as a trap of any kind.
You should have your sarcasm detector checked: it seems not to be working.
The goal of the GPL started as simplicity, and over time it's been evolving into a scheme to trap developers, distributors and users of libraries. The great-grandparent's point illustrates it perfectly, even if he blames the wrong party.There is no scheme to trap anyone: it is quite simple: if you do not want to accept the conditions I impose on my code, then write your own. If you are not willing to comply with my licence for my library, then do not use it. It is not that hard, really...
How on earth can that be construed as a scheme to trap anyone? And how is it different from anything else (apart from the fact that the GPL allow the party accepting it to do things that party would otherwise be not allowed to do)?
I imagine you are implying by this that the GPL proponents are trying to tie developers' hands?
as opposed to having his IQ correctly underestimated?
Absurd copyright laws probably have a much bigger share of the guilt in hindering people's feeding off each other's creativity...
All that is going on as we speak. If you have not heard lots and lots of `experimentation', well, you need to get out more...
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about.
Well, my point was precisely that if you think that "every country that has fallen victim to excessive privatization" means the U.S. ad Irq, then you really, really, really, need to read a bit more about the issue.
Sigh. I guess people really do use these GenMe and GenY thingies outside of magazine titling departments :(
Sigh.
Wow. That opened your eyes? I guess you do not read much news about any country anywhere on this planet...
What you are saying can be said of essentially everything...
And yet here you are comparing SQL Server to its competition and declaring it to be `amazing'.
Or the whole of Cairo nowadays...
Huh?
I wonder where `in islam' is...
I have no idea what the GP thinks about this, but I for one think technology, politics and pretty much any other matter deserves and needs to be made fun of. Anything that's worth taking seriously needs to be made fun of.
The most dangerous people are those that take serious things seriously.
I am not bitter. I should probably know better by now and not expect much more than `arguments' based on personal attacks (with the added fun that it is quite impossible to make a personal attackon someone you do not know at all, like you do not know me!) around here :(
Mathematics is a cooperative enterprise and no one would be able to do anything without being able to make copious use of the work of others. This has always been like that, but nowadays, the economic aspect of copying and distribution being essentially done with (I met a guy who, we can say, is two mathematician-generations before me, who, in his youth, went to Paris for a while and he spent there most of his time making handwritten copies of papers in the library of the Paris University!) this is much more so. Looking at the arXiv makes that apparent. This is better for all involved and it is better for society as a whole. Globally, too.
Literature, music and other artistic activities used to be pretty much the same, but in contrast with what's happened in maths, this has not become more so. Not at all. While it is true that good literature, good music and so on are still being done, there is a coherent argument that points to the fact that it could be much better. That society not only has not benefited as much as it could, but that is has actually lost.
Essentially eternal copyrights do not benefit society.
And pretending that Hendrix, Paganini or other great people did what they did because the cared for being able to hold copyrights for their work 50 years after they would die is, well, silly.
Well, I did not become a musician but I became a mathematician. I've been studying and working my ass off for the last 15 years. And I can surely tell you my choice was not motivated by the prospects of collecting copyright on my works 50 years after my death...
So you think that Paganini or Hendrix became musicians because of the money they'd get for copyrights?
Terrabytes... I wonder what they use in Mars.
That's a plan for success: have all apps implement a simple feature which belongs conceptually to the window manager. That way, you'll get one implementation per app, withs its peculiar interface, location in the menus, keyboard shortcuts and quirks. Great!
Well, as I said before, I cannot do anything if you fail to see the point that I tried to make, more than provide the explanation I already gave.
No, I didn't miss it, I didn't even look at it. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for accurate information. I believe that is what I said and then cited reasons for it. It is no different then me writing something down and claiming it was correct to support my position. I wasn't making any claims to the accuracy of the definition, just that I wouldn't use that as a source except as a starting place to look elsewhere.In other words, you are shooting the messanger ;-)
Well, the general accuracy of Wikipedia as a primary source, as a secondary source, as a starting place or anything else is quite irrelevant, when one is discussing the correctness of a description of what an ad hominem argumentation is. Wikipedia can be the worst source ever and still provide the correct description. And it does.
If you are, for some reason, discussing the reliability of Wikipedia, then I have just to pull myself from the conversation, as I am not discussing that. Before doing that, I'd suggest that when you do argue that Wipipedia is not a reliable source, you do not use the article on Ad hominem argumentation as an example of incorrectness.
You would be correct in assuming I don't have that book. I cannot speak for the other person. However, from the sources I have availible, I believe it was the correct usage in the context it was used in. Again, I stress the importance on the word must.Oh well.
If you read what the GGP wrote, you'll see that that is not what he said. He said: "Suggesting that the war must have been solely motivated by greed is a circumstantial ad hom."
An ad hominem argumentation would be something along the lines of "because they are people that are usually motivated by greed (and therefore evil) this thing they did (wage war) is wrong". It is a completely different thing to say that "because they did this thing (wage war) solely motivated by greed, then what they did is wrong." In the first case, you are trying to base rejection of the actions on the persons that carried them; in the second, on their motivations to carry them. If you cannot tell the two apart, well, I can't do much about it.
Another clear example of an ad hominem argument is provided by your own post:
I'm not sure Wikipedia is an accurate source of anything except a starting point in additional research. So much on that site is wrong, loaded and manipulated towards agendas it isn't funny. Then you have the entire issue of the Harvard professor who lived in mom's basement in KY.Here you are not arguing against the definition provided by Wikipedia for ad hominem argumentation. Instead, you are saying that, because Wikipedia is not an accurate source all the time and it gets things wrong all the time, and beause it is filled with agendas and some wikipedian turned out to live in his mom's basement, then the description it provides for what an ad hominem argument is wrong.
While the Wikipedia page for Ad Hominen could certainly take a general make-over to make it clearer, more precise and so on, the actual description of the phallacy is correct. You seem to miss that.
Finally, I mentioned Wikipedia because that's probably available to the person I was responding to. I have a copy of Aristotle's Organum at home, and I think that'd make for a much more authoritative source in his/her view and in yours (not in mine, actually) but I would think assuming people have a copy of the Organum at hand while reading Slashdot is a bit off-base. Any reasonable good book on logic and argumentation would do just as well, though.
Hmm. You are judging the events with the perspective that `he was doing stuff so that Busg can look bad', when actual people, lots and lots of them! (and not only US soldiers...) have been killed as a consequence of what happened. I would imagine Bush could withstand some badmouthing, specially if it came from someone with such a low standing in everyone's view as Saddam, don't you think?
I do not think that all would have taken the same decisions. Not at all. Pretending there are no real differences is probably the biggest mistake one can make in judging political events.
A tyrant is bad no matter what, and although all of these guys could be described as much, saddam was a real case. It's like describing that really hairy man with the really big beard among the troops of a civil war army (psst, they all had beards). Saddam was heads and shoulders above the rest.The problem is, that he was a tyrant (which he was, of course) was of no real consequence in the events that occurred. There are many other tyrants and there have been many more (I lived in a country under an US-sponsored set of tyrants---less `colorful' but not a bit less deadly than Saddam---for example, and we are still trying to get the catastrophic and dramatic outcome of it all out of our minds). It is absurd not only in view of what eventually actually occurred but it was also absurd at the time these events were in the making, to pretend that the motivations were not very much others than removing a tyrant.
Even if one wants to argue that at least there is one less tyrant around, one can to take into account the complete picture. In terms of global security, the well-being of iraqi people, the stability of the middle east... I'd say, in terms of any minimally reason criterion, the situation is much worse that before.
Using his corpse to bash bush is stupid. No matter what, if were still here, left alone and in power, the dude WOULD have kept building and WOULD have used whatever he got his hands on -- he always did....But, folks -- especially here -- really seem to get off on the bush bashing, so, have at it. Just remember, the next dude -- no matter what party he's from (or dudette) will be the same thing man. It's the same thing all over again.
I could not be less interested in bashing Bush. He is, and has been for quite a while now, nothing more than a historical circumstance. The thing I have a problem with is the way events have come to pass, the way people have reacted to them, and the absolute certainty that this same stupid plot can and, probably, will happen again.
Pierre Bourdieu, a sociologist, wrote somewhere that there is nothing more subversive than understanding how things came to be and to happen, because being aware of that carries the knowledge that things might have been different.
Bashing Bush is stupid, because he is already history. Understanding how he came to be and do what he did (at least, what he was the visible head of) is quite important.
I guess you have to 40 before you stop believing in politicians....Not really. Not at all.