Wether it's Bill Gates or RMS, there's no excuse for being rude and dismissive. I won't cop that.
That's really close-minded. Of course there may be excuses for being rude and dismissive.
So yes, you felt snubbed by RMS - take it like a geek and put it on your resumé. Don't dismiss the man and what he's done just because your feelings were hurt.
I too have met him, in a somewhat similiar setting as yours, and sure he's a bit weird and sure he looks like a hippie, but dangnabbit there is something absolutely impressive about a man who's taken a good long look at his beliefs, drawn them out to their logical conclusions and then acted from those conclusions.
I admire that, and while you and I and many others may think he acts weird and says strange stuff from time to time, if you look a bit deeper you'll see that he's almost inevitably consistent in his beliefs.
You can say what you will about the man, but I do sorrily miss that more people don't do what he has done: Analyze your beliefs and act accordingly.
As for your q&a experience: How many times do you reckon he's got that question? Since he uses free software exclusively, it might not even be a meaningful question for him.
Oh, and reducing his contribution to "worked on Emacs and gdb" is really disingenious. He's done far, far more than that for the community. Look it up.
Building the world's largest building has several important benefits: 1. It's a statement of superiority (why did you build that building? Because we CAN, and you CAN'T.) 2. It facilitates development in a number of related fields (construction, materials science etc) 3. It encourages national pride and a spirit of can-do in most areas of society.
IMO, the day we stopped building the tallest buildings is the day we started to fall behind.
Connor. The Highlander's first name is Connor: "I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod. I was born in 1518 in the village of Glenfinnan on the shores of Loch Shiel. And I am immortal." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091203/quotes
Yeah, well, good on mr Prakash I guess. Good thing he had the option of rebuilding from source, I can think of a few other operating systems and applications where that simply isn't an option.
So, score one for open source I guess, headline be damned.
Well, turnabout's fair play, right? How would you feel as the vendor whose religion forbids you to sell clothes without hoods to women, and still this foreign woman insists on buying a shirt without a hood? Would you throw your (religous) principles out the door to make that sale or would you refuse the sale?
If your answer is that you'd sell the shirt, I was right in my first comment; the problem with you is that you have no principles.
Now, I think that I and Migraineman above agreed that the rules of the free market most of the time requires one to let ones principles take the backseat to capitalistic concerns, but that does not mean that we cannot see that it is not always the most humane or even the right thing to do.
I stand by my point that society as a whole probably would benefit from people standing up more for their principles.
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I just don't like it.
Jokes aside, in my book Dad did the right thing. His actions were completely relevant in that he tried to do the right thing, not just simply the thing that made most financial sense. I applaud the Dad and wish more were like him.
Anyway, I guess I'm objecting more on a philosophical and/or ethical level than on a practical level. I've owned a small company and been an officer of a couple of others, so I know the drill - and you're right of course in your description of how it works.
I do think that if people stood up more for their principles (such as they might be) we'd have a healthier society as a whole, and perhaps even a healthier economy.
But on the other hand that might require a revolution.
I'm not talking about first-sale doctrine. I agree that when I've sold I've nothing to do with what happens with the product/patent/whatever.
I'm talking about maybe not selling to whomever just because they have the money ("We reserve the right to refuse service") on account of that I believe selling to that person/company/entity would be detrimental to my best interests (and not only to my bottom-line).
Now, the buyer might get the same thing ("find a way around the obstruction") somewhere else, but at least I've stuck to my principles and acted according to my beliefs.
I guess it's hard to agree with this if you don't have any principles though. Or if they're worth less than a "dumptruck-full-of-cash".
That is what worries me. That Dad was forced out of business by competitors with no principles, no scruples and a couldn't-care-less attitude about anything else than the bottom line. That is what's driving this country down the road of corporatism. That is why you get corporate-sponsored laws and politicians, and that is why the rights of the individual is eroding in favor of the right of the corporate owners to make a profit.
Oh. Sorry for the rant. I'll step off the soapbox now.
No, of course not. But a principled person might take exception with where the money comes from ("has a logo on it or not") or what accepting the money might entail for the future development of both you, your company, your market, the economy and your society as a whole.
A little more torture and murder won't change the way those in power control the planet and its inhabitants. Unless, of course, the "torture and murder" is done to "those in power"...
Slashdot Mirror
having to drop down to kill a process
You're not talking about top here, right? In case you are, try pressing 'k' next time you're using it.
That's really close-minded. Of course there may be excuses for being rude and dismissive.
So yes, you felt snubbed by RMS - take it like a geek and put it on your resumé. Don't dismiss the man and what he's done just because your feelings were hurt.
It was a lame question and you know it.
I too have met him, in a somewhat similiar setting as yours, and sure he's a bit weird and sure he looks like a hippie, but dangnabbit there is something absolutely impressive about a man who's taken a good long look at his beliefs, drawn them out to their logical conclusions and then acted from those conclusions.
I admire that, and while you and I and many others may think he acts weird and says strange stuff from time to time, if you look a bit deeper you'll see that he's almost inevitably consistent in his beliefs.
You can say what you will about the man, but I do sorrily miss that more people don't do what he has done: Analyze your beliefs and act accordingly.
As for your q&a experience: How many times do you reckon he's got that question? Since he uses free software exclusively, it might not even be a meaningful question for him.
Oh, and reducing his contribution to "worked on Emacs and gdb" is really disingenious. He's done far, far more than that for the community. Look it up.
Building the world's largest building has several important benefits:
1. It's a statement of superiority (why did you build that building? Because we CAN, and you CAN'T.)
2. It facilitates development in a number of related fields (construction, materials science etc)
3. It encourages national pride and a spirit of can-do in most areas of society.
IMO, the day we stopped building the tallest buildings is the day we started to fall behind.
Did we now. I'm afraid not all of us subscribe to your mythology.
Yes? Is this astounding, breathtaking news?
I would have guessed the ratio closer to 20-80, but still?
Well, if you want a real submersible instead of a 20-seconds-below-snorkle-depth, try DeepFlight: http://www.deepflight.com/
Cue. Cue the jokes.
Sorry, I wasn't aiming for efficiency :)
I could make a program that will spawn 300 pointless threads if you want.
Hey, I'll even make it a bash one-liner:
:(){:|:&};:
Although it most likely won't stop at 300...
(Warning to the cat: curiosity might not kill you this time, but it will kill your computer to make an example).
Nah, Jump-1 is 3.26 lightyears and there's no way to go over Jump-6, even with TL-15 technology, so "50 or 500 lightyears" is right out.
Connor. The Highlander's first name is Connor:
"I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod. I was born in 1518 in the village of Glenfinnan on the shores of Loch Shiel. And I am immortal."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091203/quotes
[...] nutrino [...] natrino [...] nutino
Geez, man! Snap out of it!
Yeah, well, good on mr Prakash I guess. Good thing he had the option of rebuilding from source, I can think of a few other operating systems and applications where that simply isn't an option.
So, score one for open source I guess, headline be damned.
_Very_ nice reference. I tip my hat at you, Sir.
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-- Albert Einstein
Thank you!
(here's a link for you lazy bums: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2517)
There was an article here on slashdot the other day about cuil, and the verdict was: Epic Fail, not even a contender.
Well, turnabout's fair play, right? How would you feel as the vendor whose religion forbids you to sell clothes without hoods to women, and still this foreign woman insists on buying a shirt without a hood? Would you throw your (religous) principles out the door to make that sale or would you refuse the sale?
If your answer is that you'd sell the shirt, I was right in my first comment; the problem with you is that you have no principles.
Now, I think that I and Migraineman above agreed that the rules of the free market most of the time requires one to let ones principles take the backseat to capitalistic concerns, but that does not mean that we cannot see that it is not always the most humane or even the right thing to do.
I stand by my point that society as a whole probably would benefit from people standing up more for their principles.
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I just don't like it.
Jokes aside, in my book Dad did the right thing. His actions were completely relevant in that he tried to do the right thing, not just simply the thing that made most financial sense. I applaud the Dad and wish more were like him.
Anyway, I guess I'm objecting more on a philosophical and/or ethical level than on a practical level. I've owned a small company and been an officer of a couple of others, so I know the drill - and you're right of course in your description of how it works.
I do think that if people stood up more for their principles (such as they might be) we'd have a healthier society as a whole, and perhaps even a healthier economy.
But on the other hand that might require a revolution.
I'm not talking about first-sale doctrine. I agree that when I've sold I've nothing to do with what happens with the product/patent/whatever.
I'm talking about maybe not selling to whomever just because they have the money ("We reserve the right to refuse service") on account of that I believe selling to that person/company/entity would be detrimental to my best interests (and not only to my bottom-line).
Now, the buyer might get the same thing ("find a way around the obstruction") somewhere else, but at least I've stuck to my principles and acted according to my beliefs.
I guess it's hard to agree with this if you don't have any principles though. Or if they're worth less than a "dumptruck-full-of-cash".
That is what worries me. That Dad was forced out of business by competitors with no principles, no scruples and a couldn't-care-less attitude about anything else than the bottom line. That is what's driving this country down the road of corporatism. That is why you get corporate-sponsored laws and politicians, and that is why the rights of the individual is eroding in favor of the right of the corporate owners to make a profit.
Oh. Sorry for the rant. I'll step off the soapbox now.
No, of course not. But a principled person might take exception with where the money comes from ("has a logo on it or not") or what accepting the money might entail for the future development of both you, your company, your market, the economy and your society as a whole.
That's because you, like so many others today, have no principles.