If you must have that apple, why not just take it?
While I have some issues with copyright, I don't get so ideologically blinded as to think that copyright-based products are evil. If someone is selling a book, and I am willing to purchase that book, then it's none of your damned business. Do not tell me I'm stupid for not copying it.
Ahh, but the act of restricting what people can copy (copyrights) is an act of coercion.
Why should I not be allowed to purchase a book which the law says I may not copy? What is immoral about engaging in a voluntary economic transaction to aquire an audo CD full of copyrighted songs? What is evil about buying software?
If you have a problem with copyright, then attack copyright. I might even join you. But don't take out your anger on the free market, because it isn't the problem.
RMS gets pissed when people call him "communist", yet turns around and calls Bush "fascist". I'm glad to see that the head promoter of Free Software is able to rise above the petty bickering and name calling of modern political discourse.
Why does everyone keep quoting the Wikipedia definition? Why? Why? Why?
Not just one half hour ago, I was reading a post to the Jimmy Wales story, where a Wikipedia apologist said that it should not be considered a reliable source of information.
You ought to do more than just post some definitions of fascism, you ought to READ them as well. You see, the US does not fit those definitions. Not even close. Individuals and groups are more powerful thant the "nation", no question about it. Our entire legal system from Constitution on down is based on it. There is no political control of the country, because the "losing" party still wields considerable power in the Congress and Senate. While we do have some economic corporatism, so does the rest of the world.
"Fascism" is a pejorative used by the left when they're too lazy to put forward a rational argument. That RMS used it is a sign he's lazy too, at least with regards to non-software issues.
You can't have free trade, because that would allow the possibility of free trade in software. As RMS has so eloquently stated, you do NOT have the freedom to voluntarily engage in an economic transaction which results in your aquiring proprietary software.
This is for your own good, so suck it up and let RMS run your life.
Way to go, Lord Dweomer, for getting sucked in and making an ass of yourself, spreading misinformation. You even got modded up for it. People have no fucking shame.
Yeah, shame on you for dissing Ender Ryan's religion. You are so pathetic.
So what you're saying is, that in addition to the telco monopoly and the cableco monopoly, I now get a choice of a powerco monopoly for my internet? When are people going to learn that these monopolies are harmful to competition?!?!
Yes, you are paranoid. You may be correct to be concerned, but don't take it to the point of paranoia. People might take you more seriously without it.
And what are those sources? The rant in question doesn't mention any sources at all, doesn't even acknowledge that there was a source. There's not an "unknown sources say..." or even a "I heard from a friend that...". Instead he just blurts out a fake quote.
So what are those sources? Name them. Show us reputable evidence for all of those quotes.
Actually, if you look at the long picture, we're heading away. Remember the days when the top income bracket was 90%, when racism was the law, when you could go to jail for your lifestyle? We haven't got forward in every respect, but I think overall we are still heading steadily away from authoritarian government.
In terms of liberty, I would rather be living in the US of 2005 than the US of 1955.
I'm a fairly radical libertarian, and quite concerned with my liberty. But we really do have a heck of a lot of freedom in the US, more than the naysayers would have us believe. We are far from perfect, but we're not the totalitarian regime that many on the left would have you believe.
Considering the way people freak out unless you speak "politically correctly" about darn near everything, we hit that part of "1984" a long time ago. It's the "thought police" straight out of the book.
Sorry to mod you down, but the "GNU/Linux" versus "Linux" debate is off topic...
One person, two persons, five, ten, one hundred, one thousand, one million. Where do you draw the line. A good ethical principle should cover all cases. A bad ethical principle makes arbitrary judgements based on fuzzy boundaries.
People are making bad ethical principles by creating an extremely fuzzy line when it comes to privacy. If "people" do it there is nothing wrong, but if "corporations" do it, then it's a horrible evil infringement of privacy. We need a much better principle behind this.
In other words, because it's free beer, Wikipedia should not be held to any standards? Because it doesn't cost anything people should ignore its flaws?
Gee, imagine that attitude extended to the rest of the universe:
"This pie was terrible! It tastes like shit!"
"Shut your hole you freaking ingrate! It's not like it's Sarah Bloody Lee that you had to pay for!"
Instead of ranting like a lunatic, maybe you can calmly and rationally explain why TPM is evil. Maybe you can quietly explain why a chip with a unique identifier is evil. Maybe you can elucidate why using a chip's identifier to identify your system during an http session is evil while using an SSL digital certificate to uniquely identify your system during the same http session is not?
Never destroy your rationality in sacrifice to your emotions.
The real problem, which no one is willing to face, is that there is no adequate definition of privacy. You state the need to protect personal information as a property, but you neglect to define what exactly personal information is, and why it should be given such extraordinary protection. Why does your right to protect your personal information trump my right to retain that knowledge in my head or write it down or tell someone else?
An absurd example, but one which gets the point across:
Bob: "Hey, who is that guy over there?"
Joe: "Let me go ask him if I can tell you." [walks across the room, asks, gets a legal signed waiver, comes back] "Oh, that's Larry. He lives the next block over."
If you take a hammer, make it look like a screwdriver, name it a screwdriver, and tell everyone that it's a screwdriver, and then discover that people don't like your hammer because it's a lousy screwdriver, you only have yourself to blame.
The thing is, you can tell a wikiprank when you see one. Your example was not plausible at all, while my original sentence was. The bizarre is rarely plausible.
I won't say what article it was. I wrote a personal opinion piece about a thing, and the wikipedia article was about the person who made that thing. The reference's context infered that the link was to a critique of the person, which it was not.
Slashdot Mirror
If you must have that book, why not just copy it?
If you must have that apple, why not just take it?
While I have some issues with copyright, I don't get so ideologically blinded as to think that copyright-based products are evil. If someone is selling a book, and I am willing to purchase that book, then it's none of your damned business. Do not tell me I'm stupid for not copying it.
Ahh, but the act of restricting what people can copy (copyrights) is an act of coercion.
Why should I not be allowed to purchase a book which the law says I may not copy? What is immoral about engaging in a voluntary economic transaction to aquire an audo CD full of copyrighted songs? What is evil about buying software?
If you have a problem with copyright, then attack copyright. I might even join you. But don't take out your anger on the free market, because it isn't the problem.
RMS gets pissed when people call him "communist", yet turns around and calls Bush "fascist". I'm glad to see that the head promoter of Free Software is able to rise above the petty bickering and name calling of modern political discourse.
Why does everyone keep quoting the Wikipedia definition? Why? Why? Why?
Not just one half hour ago, I was reading a post to the Jimmy Wales story, where a Wikipedia apologist said that it should not be considered a reliable source of information.
You ought to do more than just post some definitions of fascism, you ought to READ them as well. You see, the US does not fit those definitions. Not even close. Individuals and groups are more powerful thant the "nation", no question about it. Our entire legal system from Constitution on down is based on it. There is no political control of the country, because the "losing" party still wields considerable power in the Congress and Senate. While we do have some economic corporatism, so does the rest of the world.
"Fascism" is a pejorative used by the left when they're too lazy to put forward a rational argument. That RMS used it is a sign he's lazy too, at least with regards to non-software issues.
You can't have free trade, because that would allow the possibility of free trade in software. As RMS has so eloquently stated, you do NOT have the freedom to voluntarily engage in an economic transaction which results in your aquiring proprietary software.
This is for your own good, so suck it up and let RMS run your life.
He should have edited the entry anonymously from a public library. No one cares if Wikipedia has random anonymous edits.
What about a research tool that allows its users to insert errors?
Way to go, Lord Dweomer, for getting sucked in and making an ass of yourself, spreading misinformation. You even got modded up for it. People have no fucking shame.
Yeah, shame on you for dissing Ender Ryan's religion. You are so pathetic.
So what you're saying is, that in addition to the telco monopoly and the cableco monopoly, I now get a choice of a powerco monopoly for my internet? When are people going to learn that these monopolies are harmful to competition?!?!
</sarcasm>
Yes, you are paranoid. You may be correct to be concerned, but don't take it to the point of paranoia. People might take you more seriously without it.
And what are those sources? The rant in question doesn't mention any sources at all, doesn't even acknowledge that there was a source. There's not an "unknown sources say..." or even a "I heard from a friend that...". Instead he just blurts out a fake quote.
So what are those sources? Name them. Show us reputable evidence for all of those quotes.
Actually, if you look at the long picture, we're heading away. Remember the days when the top income bracket was 90%, when racism was the law, when you could go to jail for your lifestyle? We haven't got forward in every respect, but I think overall we are still heading steadily away from authoritarian government.
In terms of liberty, I would rather be living in the US of 2005 than the US of 1955.
But if you must, at least don't do KDE vs. Gnome. What's the best possible outcome of that?
I think they're doing it for the jihad value. Why else would you do a study comparing the two?
A real usability study would study usability. Duh.
Way too complicated. I just insert my audio CD and drag-n-drop ogg files out of Konqueror...
The difference is, if I make a mistake, I own up to it. I don't blame the user when my software crashes.
I'm a fairly radical libertarian, and quite concerned with my liberty. But we really do have a heck of a lot of freedom in the US, more than the naysayers would have us believe. We are far from perfect, but we're not the totalitarian regime that many on the left would have you believe.
Considering the way people freak out unless you speak "politically correctly" about darn near everything, we hit that part of "1984" a long time ago. It's the "thought police" straight out of the book.
Sorry to mod you down, but the "GNU/Linux" versus "Linux" debate is off topic...
One person, two persons, five, ten, one hundred, one thousand, one million. Where do you draw the line. A good ethical principle should cover all cases. A bad ethical principle makes arbitrary judgements based on fuzzy boundaries.
People are making bad ethical principles by creating an extremely fuzzy line when it comes to privacy. If "people" do it there is nothing wrong, but if "corporations" do it, then it's a horrible evil infringement of privacy. We need a much better principle behind this.
In other words, because it's free beer, Wikipedia should not be held to any standards? Because it doesn't cost anything people should ignore its flaws?
Gee, imagine that attitude extended to the rest of the universe:
"This pie was terrible! It tastes like shit!"
"Shut your hole you freaking ingrate! It's not like it's Sarah Bloody Lee that you had to pay for!"
"But it had a dead rat in it!"
"It was free so shut up about it!"
Calm down! Get a grip!
Instead of ranting like a lunatic, maybe you can calmly and rationally explain why TPM is evil. Maybe you can quietly explain why a chip with a unique identifier is evil. Maybe you can elucidate why using a chip's identifier to identify your system during an http session is evil while using an SSL digital certificate to uniquely identify your system during the same http session is not?
Never destroy your rationality in sacrifice to your emotions.
The real problem, which no one is willing to face, is that there is no adequate definition of privacy. You state the need to protect personal information as a property, but you neglect to define what exactly personal information is, and why it should be given such extraordinary protection. Why does your right to protect your personal information trump my right to retain that knowledge in my head or write it down or tell someone else?
An absurd example, but one which gets the point across:
Bob: "Hey, who is that guy over there?"
Joe: "Let me go ask him if I can tell you." [walks across the room, asks, gets a legal signed waiver, comes back] "Oh, that's Larry. He lives the next block over."
If you take a hammer, make it look like a screwdriver, name it a screwdriver, and tell everyone that it's a screwdriver, and then discover that people don't like your hammer because it's a lousy screwdriver, you only have yourself to blame.
The thing is, you can tell a wikiprank when you see one. Your example was not plausible at all, while my original sentence was. The bizarre is rarely plausible.
I won't say what article it was. I wrote a personal opinion piece about a thing, and the wikipedia article was about the person who made that thing. The reference's context infered that the link was to a critique of the person, which it was not.