1) Rawls does not accept a right to property, he only accepts that property may need to exist as an incentive to produce. That's a fundamental incompatibility between the utilitarian view and the natural rights view. Natural rights does not consider the "degree of toleration" a valid question after you establish it as a right.
2) No, Rawls is not compatible with Right economics. There are people of Left economic theory that pursue Right policies because of Rawls-like beliefs, but calling them part of the Right that's like calling the ACLU anti-Jewish because it supports the right of Nazis to march. (Assuming we're talking America. In Europe, the right-left economic dichotomy is entirely on the American Left.)
2) It's not pure Locke.
3) No, I don't accept inheritance. The dead have no rights, so ownership ended when the owner died.
4) The labor is done once the gold's out of the ground, too.
5) Stallman rejects any form of restrictions on redistribution, including contractual. Furthermore, he demands that sales only be made under specific terms -- i.e., with source-code disclosure.
Without Linus's kernel, the "Gnu system" would be completely irrelevant today. The BSDs would still have gotten out of the legal wrangling with AT&T before the HURD was done, and FreeBSD would have taken the mindshare that Linux got.
The result? RMS/FSF/GNU would be totally irrelevant to society today. RMS should thank God every day that Linus GPLed the Linux kernel in appreciation for gcc, because otherwise everybody would be using BSD and nobody would give a damn what RMS has to say about anything.
So, since IBM used to (and for all I know, still does) compile different parts of OS/2 with different compilers, they should have prepended the names of all the compilers to its name? Interesting.
If Linus hadn't written a kernel, we'd all be running BSD, not the Hurd, because BSD would have been usable first. And Linux was only GPLed by Linus out of gratitude for the compiler to begin with. And with BSD as the standard, the GPL wouldn't have have managed to get nearly the mindshare it has today.
So, does RMS express his appreciation? Is he thankful that Linus saved the GPL from being the second-string in a BSD world? No. He bitches and moans that Linus doesn't have enough ideological purity.
Ha! This is the same country where growing wheat on your own property for your own consumption is legally classed as "interstate commerce".
At least the Congress is granted the power to create some form of copyright. If you're worried about the Constitution, there are many more areas where the Federal Government is exceeding its enumerated powers far further.
And if you aren't worried about those abuses, you're an absolute hypocrite bringing up much lesser ones.
Actually, one of the things GM fairly recently did that cut costs quite a bit was setting up both its minivans and commercial vans to use the same tail light assemblies.
Er, because Apple's design for its CD-ROM is incompetent? This isn't a matter of putting something in the drive that causes physical damage. This is a failure of the Apple code.
Yes, but this isn't retaliation. It isn't a tariff. It's a declaration that U.S. companies selling to Europeans must collect taxes just like European companies selling to Europeans already have to. This was already in the works before the steel tariff went up; this was already being discussed years ago.
He wants to eliminate all governmental interference in the creation and use of code, and that starts with eliminating government sponsored monopolies over ideas, otherwise known as the "intellectual property" system.
Well, then, let's also eliminate all government interference in the acquisition of wealth, and start by eliminating the laws against robbing banks. Okay, now moving on to a serious discussion of political property theory . ..
Stallman has a fundamentally leftist view of property, in that he views it as a mere contrivance to handle the fact that physical objects cannot be simultaneously posessed by multiple people at once. However, if that's all there is to property, it means there is no fundamental right to property, and there is no intrinsic reason why you should have a specific car instead of me. This results in conclusions similar to those reached by Rawls, which holds that inequality in distribution of matter should only be tolerated insofar as the inequality improves the overall standard of living. And Rawls's theory of justice is at the core of most modern nonmarxist leftist schools of thought.
Those that make a serious intellectual defense of intellectual property operate from a different assumption. They argue that property is not a means of allocating physical objects, but in securing a person's right to his own labor. The natural gold in the ground is unowned; if I dig it up, my labor gives me the right to dispose of it as I see fit. A tree growing in the wild is unowned; if I planted it, though, my labor of planting makes it mine. An idea itself is unowned; if I think of it and document it, though, my labor of thought and documentation makes it mine. You cannot take my gold from me without stealing the benefit of my labor, which in effect makes my time digging for the gold time acting as your slave; you cannot cut down my tree without stealing the benefit of my labor which in effect makes my time planting the tree time acting as your slave; you cannot take my documented idea without stealing the benefit of my labor which in effect makes my time thinking and writing time acting as your slave.
Which theory you accept, of course, is up to you. But those, like RMS, who operate from the first theory, are on the political-economic left.
Er, yes. The idea being, if you're going to execute somebody anyway, asphyxiation with an inert gas isn't quite as brutal as electrocution, cyanide gas, lethal injection, a firing squad, hanging, or beheading, the methods usually employed in the world today.
Similarly, when fighting a war, accept surrenders, treat POWs like fellow human beings, don't use poison gas, don't deliberately target civilians, etc. War is brutal enough as is.
This is very odd since he should have been able to notice he was suffocating and open the door.
Actually, no, he shouldn't. In most people (though there are some medical conditions under which this is not true), the sensation of suffocation is not caused by lack of oxygen, but by buildup of carbon dioxide.
Since breathing an inert gas allows the exchange of CO2 into the atmosphere, the only symptoms suffered are those of oxygen deprivation -- which impairs judgement and leads to giddiness like being drunk -- not a sensation of being suffocated. Due to the impaired judgement, people suffering from the symptoms generally don't recognize that they are suffering the symptoms, making inert-gas asphyxiation an especially easy way to die.
(Note: specifically because there is no sensation of pain or suffocation, inert-gas asphyxiation has been proposed as a humane method of execution.)
The control waves are tuned to Periodic Table group 14 -- carbon for controlling humans, silicon and germanium for controling transistors. You accordingly need to protect yourself with one of the group 14 metals -- either genuine tin, or lead. Aluminum doesn't work!
Now, you see, conspiracy theories about those deaths have what the one posted here does not: logic. They were all Britons involved in defense software, and the rate of deaths by apparent suicide was twice the national norm according to THE INDEPENDENT.
It could still have been a statistical blip; things do occasionally happen to clump, and a doubled rate in a specific subsample isn't all that unusual. But a prima facie case for somebody bumping off British programmers exists.
3. The "Re-Boot" phenomenon. When you provide a powerful experience to a disbeliever, (such as knocking them on their asses by tapping their crown Chakra, pointing to a plane dispersing a chem-trail, Dream walking into their sleep and describing to them in detail their dream the next day, knocking over a chair or lighting a candle with focused Chi, etc.)
First, if you're running a conspiracy to off microbiologists, why those eleven? There's no pattern as to nationality, research subject, etc.
Second, unless you know how many microbiologists there are (20,000 academic in the U.S. is the only number given, which is clearly inadequate), how can you even show this is an unusual rate of "unusual" deaths? Only until you establish that there's a statistcally unusual number of deaths is there any grounds for any speculation at all.
Columbus decided that since he had sailed west to get to India, and ran into some land, had indeed reached India and proclaimed the inhabitants Indians -- a misnomer which exists to this day.
Given that the word "Indian" was a European coinage to begin with (the people of India never called themselves Indians until after they borrowed the word from the Europeans), it isn't all that big of a misnomer.
(Actually, that's one of the great ironies of both [Asian] Indian nationalism and [American] Indian rights groups; no Indian [of either continent] thought of all Indians [of his continent] as one group until after Europeans came.)
No. They can be completely self-consistent. The problem is that any mathematical system depends on axioms that cannot be proven within the system. However, to use mathematics as a descriptive language does not require that the axioms be proven; they merely need to be definable in mathematical language.
With the simple neologism "wavicle", you can talk about them in English, too. The problem is that wave-particle duality is contrary to our normal experience, so anybody who doesn't deal with it regularly has a hard time undestanding it. But it's the same problem as teaching musical composition to someone who has never heard music.
You can play a piece for them, and you can describe melodies and harmonies very precisely in terms of mathematical ratios. But the student isn't going to really understand what musical composition is about until you continually expose them to music for a long period of time.
The device has a general-purpose microprocessor, data storage, and a network connection; therefore software can be written for it that collects data about its use and sends it in. Equivalent software not only could, but has been invented for coroporations to monitor use of their PCs, even though those PCs were not ever specifically designed to collect and send in such data.
Oh, bullshit. There is no "social contract". A contract entered into under duress is not a contract, and there's no government on Earth that's willing to let me peacefully seceede.
An unwritten contract is still a contract if both parties freely agree; an involuntary association is not a contract whether written or not.
Ah, yes. The aliens aren't hostile, and they have the technology to alleviate much human suffering, but they can't find five minutes to land in Mexico City and reveal these secrets? They can't beam a transmission to the satellite dishes of a TV station announcing their existence to make a coverup completely impossible and help us?
Damned bastards. I say we build armed spaceships, hunt them down, and exterminate them.
I'd buy all of IBM's WPS/SOM technology and either PMX or Hummingbird's Exceed for OS/2 product, and open source the lot. Linux needs a desktop? Fine. GNOME and KDE are working from the wrong end. Give it the Workplace Shell and the System Object Model for a real GUI infrastructure, and toss in an X-protocol system that's integrated with it.
Then hire Bruce Tognazzini and build a huge usability testing lab to work out the actual details of the desktop. Only MacOS X would come close. And since Linux-with-WPS would be running on everything and free...
Hmm. Well, it could be that the Israelis are part of the "West European" bloc in the U.N., are Western in culture and dress, are part of the European division of many international sporting events, are largely the descendants of European (re)migrants...
As long as we're having an artificial distinction between the three parts of the continent of Eurafroasia, why not include Israel in the "wrong" one?
Slashdot Mirror
1) Rawls does not accept a right to property, he only accepts that property may need to exist as an incentive to produce. That's a fundamental incompatibility between the utilitarian view and the natural rights view. Natural rights does not consider the "degree of toleration" a valid question after you establish it as a right.
2) No, Rawls is not compatible with Right economics. There are people of Left economic theory that pursue Right policies because of Rawls-like beliefs, but calling them part of the Right that's like calling the ACLU anti-Jewish because it supports the right of Nazis to march. (Assuming we're talking America. In Europe, the right-left economic dichotomy is entirely on the American Left.)
2) It's not pure Locke.
3) No, I don't accept inheritance. The dead have no rights, so ownership ended when the owner died.
4) The labor is done once the gold's out of the ground, too.
5) Stallman rejects any form of restrictions on redistribution, including contractual. Furthermore, he demands that sales only be made under specific terms -- i.e., with source-code disclosure.
6) "Religious devotion to the status quo"? HAH!
Without Linus's kernel, the "Gnu system" would be completely irrelevant today. The BSDs would still have gotten out of the legal wrangling with AT&T before the HURD was done, and FreeBSD would have taken the mindshare that Linux got.
The result? RMS/FSF/GNU would be totally irrelevant to society today. RMS should thank God every day that Linus GPLed the Linux kernel in appreciation for gcc, because otherwise everybody would be using BSD and nobody would give a damn what RMS has to say about anything.
So, since IBM used to (and for all I know, still does) compile different parts of OS/2 with different compilers, they should have prepended the names of all the compilers to its name? Interesting.
If Linus hadn't written a kernel, we'd all be running BSD, not the Hurd, because BSD would have been usable first. And Linux was only GPLed by Linus out of gratitude for the compiler to begin with. And with BSD as the standard, the GPL wouldn't have have managed to get nearly the mindshare it has today.
So, does RMS express his appreciation? Is he thankful that Linus saved the GPL from being the second-string in a BSD world? No. He bitches and moans that Linus doesn't have enough ideological purity.
Ha! This is the same country where growing wheat on your own property for your own consumption is legally classed as "interstate commerce".
At least the Congress is granted the power to create some form of copyright. If you're worried about the Constitution, there are many more areas where the Federal Government is exceeding its enumerated powers far further.
And if you aren't worried about those abuses, you're an absolute hypocrite bringing up much lesser ones.
Actually, one of the things GM fairly recently did that cut costs quite a bit was setting up both its minivans and commercial vans to use the same tail light assemblies.
Er, because Apple's design for its CD-ROM is incompetent? This isn't a matter of putting something in the drive that causes physical damage. This is a failure of the Apple code.
Yes, but this isn't retaliation. It isn't a tariff. It's a declaration that U.S. companies selling to Europeans must collect taxes just like European companies selling to Europeans already have to. This was already in the works before the steel tariff went up; this was already being discussed years ago.
There's a reason why that one division took over. None of the others was making a profit.
He wants to eliminate all governmental interference in the creation and use of code, and that starts with eliminating government sponsored monopolies over ideas, otherwise known as the "intellectual property" system.
.
Well, then, let's also eliminate all government interference in the acquisition of wealth, and start by eliminating the laws against robbing banks. Okay, now moving on to a serious discussion of political property theory . .
Stallman has a fundamentally leftist view of property, in that he views it as a mere contrivance to handle the fact that physical objects cannot be simultaneously posessed by multiple people at once. However, if that's all there is to property, it means there is no fundamental right to property, and there is no intrinsic reason why you should have a specific car instead of me. This results in conclusions similar to those reached by Rawls, which holds that inequality in distribution of matter should only be tolerated insofar as the inequality improves the overall standard of living. And Rawls's theory of justice is at the core of most modern nonmarxist leftist schools of thought.
Those that make a serious intellectual defense of intellectual property operate from a different assumption. They argue that property is not a means of allocating physical objects, but in securing a person's right to his own labor. The natural gold in the ground is unowned; if I dig it up, my labor gives me the right to dispose of it as I see fit. A tree growing in the wild is unowned; if I planted it, though, my labor of planting makes it mine. An idea itself is unowned; if I think of it and document it, though, my labor of thought and documentation makes it mine. You cannot take my gold from me without stealing the benefit of my labor, which in effect makes my time digging for the gold time acting as your slave; you cannot cut down my tree without stealing the benefit of my labor which in effect makes my time planting the tree time acting as your slave; you cannot take my documented idea without stealing the benefit of my labor which in effect makes my time thinking and writing time acting as your slave.
Which theory you accept, of course, is up to you. But those, like RMS, who operate from the first theory, are on the political-economic left.
No. The EU made the relevant declarations before the steel tariffs. This is very much in the EU tradition of "tax harmonization".
Er, yes. The idea being, if you're going to execute somebody anyway, asphyxiation with an inert gas isn't quite as brutal as electrocution, cyanide gas, lethal injection, a firing squad, hanging, or beheading, the methods usually employed in the world today.
Similarly, when fighting a war, accept surrenders, treat POWs like fellow human beings, don't use poison gas, don't deliberately target civilians, etc. War is brutal enough as is.
This is very odd since he should have been able to notice he was suffocating and open the door.
Actually, no, he shouldn't. In most people (though there are some medical conditions under which this is not true), the sensation of suffocation is not caused by lack of oxygen, but by buildup of carbon dioxide.
Since breathing an inert gas allows the exchange of CO2 into the atmosphere, the only symptoms suffered are those of oxygen deprivation -- which impairs judgement and leads to giddiness like being drunk -- not a sensation of being suffocated. Due to the impaired judgement, people suffering from the symptoms generally don't recognize that they are suffering the symptoms, making inert-gas asphyxiation an especially easy way to die.
(Note: specifically because there is no sensation of pain or suffocation, inert-gas asphyxiation has been proposed as a humane method of execution.)
NOOO!
Aluminum foil doesn't work!
The control waves are tuned to Periodic Table group 14 -- carbon for controlling humans, silicon and germanium for controling transistors. You accordingly need to protect yourself with one of the group 14 metals -- either genuine tin, or lead. Aluminum doesn't work!
Now, you see, conspiracy theories about those deaths have what the one posted here does not: logic. They were all Britons involved in defense software, and the rate of deaths by apparent suicide was twice the national norm according to THE INDEPENDENT.
It could still have been a statistical blip; things do occasionally happen to clump, and a doubled rate in a specific subsample isn't all that unusual. But a prima facie case for somebody bumping off British programmers exists.
3. The "Re-Boot" phenomenon. When you provide a powerful experience to a disbeliever, (such as knocking them on their asses by tapping their crown Chakra, pointing to a plane dispersing a chem-trail, Dream walking into their sleep and describing to them in detail their dream the next day, knocking over a chair or lighting a candle with focused Chi, etc.)
So videotape it next time.
Um, okay...
First, if you're running a conspiracy to off microbiologists, why those eleven? There's no pattern as to nationality, research subject, etc.
Second, unless you know how many microbiologists there are (20,000 academic in the U.S. is the only number given, which is clearly inadequate), how can you even show this is an unusual rate of "unusual" deaths? Only until you establish that there's a statistcally unusual number of deaths is there any grounds for any speculation at all.
Columbus decided that since he had sailed west to get to India, and ran into some land, had indeed reached India and proclaimed the inhabitants Indians -- a misnomer which exists to this day.
Given that the word "Indian" was a European coinage to begin with (the people of India never called themselves Indians until after they borrowed the word from the Europeans), it isn't all that big of a misnomer.
(Actually, that's one of the great ironies of both [Asian] Indian nationalism and [American] Indian rights groups; no Indian [of either continent] thought of all Indians [of his continent] as one group until after Europeans came.)
No. They can be completely self-consistent. The problem is that any mathematical system depends on axioms that cannot be proven within the system. However, to use mathematics as a descriptive language does not require that the axioms be proven; they merely need to be definable in mathematical language.
With the simple neologism "wavicle", you can talk about them in English, too. The problem is that wave-particle duality is contrary to our normal experience, so anybody who doesn't deal with it regularly has a hard time undestanding it. But it's the same problem as teaching musical composition to someone who has never heard music.
You can play a piece for them, and you can describe melodies and harmonies very precisely in terms of mathematical ratios. But the student isn't going to really understand what musical composition is about until you continually expose them to music for a long period of time.
The device has a general-purpose microprocessor, data storage, and a network connection; therefore software can be written for it that collects data about its use and sends it in. Equivalent software not only could, but has been invented for coroporations to monitor use of their PCs, even though those PCs were not ever specifically designed to collect and send in such data.
An unwritten contract is still a contract if both parties freely agree; an involuntary association is not a contract whether written or not.
Ah, yes. The aliens aren't hostile, and they have the technology to alleviate much human suffering, but they can't find five minutes to land in Mexico City and reveal these secrets? They can't beam a transmission to the satellite dishes of a TV station announcing their existence to make a coverup completely impossible and help us?
Damned bastards. I say we build armed spaceships, hunt them down, and exterminate them.
I'd buy all of IBM's WPS/SOM technology and either PMX or Hummingbird's Exceed for OS/2 product, and open source the lot. Linux needs a desktop? Fine. GNOME and KDE are working from the wrong end. Give it the Workplace Shell and the System Object Model for a real GUI infrastructure, and toss in an X-protocol system that's integrated with it.
Then hire Bruce Tognazzini and build a huge usability testing lab to work out the actual details of the desktop. Only MacOS X would come close. And since Linux-with-WPS would be running on everything and free...
But, yeah, he's linked to the entertainment industry. They're his #8 contributor, as can be seen here
He's, in fact, the third-highest reciever of media contributions in the Senate (TV/Movies/Music #3.)
As long as we're having an artificial distinction between the three parts of the continent of Eurafroasia, why not include Israel in the "wrong" one?
Obviously a Canyonero.