The alternative to funding religious charities is not your bogus government-dictated-atheism strawman, but simply the status quo: a society with real religious (and secular) freedom.
"Helping others help themselves" by taking money from everyone's paycheck and giving it to the local church to do feel-good charity? Come on. Where do you get from "religions exist; acknowledge their existence" to "give religious charities government funding"?
While there are some actual real world benefits to most religious charitable organizations, these charitable arms do in fact serve in part to promote their religion.
And, it is actually very common, when enough charitable money is flowing in, for the charitable workers to take more and more for their own purposes, perhaps without realizing it.
Therefore, I oppose government funding (even with oversight) of religious charities because:
1) it is in fact monetary support of the religious organization behind the charity (money is fungible, and the charitable activities do serve to promote the religion).
2) I should be able to choose where to allocate my charitable dollars. Government bureaucracy for assigning grants for charitable work will result in less care being given to the actual charitable use of the money than when the donors take a personal interest in who they give their money to and what it is used for.
3) If we simply must have "mandatory charity" I would prefer it be performed directly by government bureaucracy (that at least is subject to central oversight and control, and could in theory develop some degree of professionalism and fairness), rather than indirectly through government and then through church bureaucracy.
Joel really dropped the ball on this one. He neglects to consider that most non-trivial software written today that still works in Win95 at some point either explicitly detects the OS version and assumes the platform will behave as tested, or performs some undocumented ritual to work around flaws in the particular incarnation of Windows.
Of course, well-written applications staying within the bounds of documented Windows Platform APIs *should* work on a perfect WINE. But, the idea that Win95 is a reasonable, stable target that WINE could easily catch up with is laughable - it takes a long time to pin down the right set of undocumented behaviors (that sounded euphemistic for "bugs") that will satisfy all the apps targetting them.
Your rebuttal is also a strong one - considering that installs of Office on old versions of Windows require a reboot, it does seem likely that core OS files are being altered (stuff like the MFC DLLs should just make calls to core Win32, so they should in theory work as well under WINE as the real thing).
I credited and linked to interesting-people in my writeup, but apparently it didn't survive the editorial chopping block. IP is a sort of more intelligently editted/moderated Slashdot, but without the annoying high-churn discussions:)
For the server(s) to authorize character changes to a signed, client-stored character, they would have to perform an expensive public-key-encryption step for every change. Hardware crypto coprocessors notwithstanding, this is infeasible.
I'd like to know what the candidates' actual (the pandering, vague debate answers are no help to me) intentions are as to the following:
constitutional amendment, if necessary, to prevent riders (or make removing them easier) on must-pass bills?
enforcing extra-constitutional national policy on states via block grants with strings attached
federal blue laws vs. local blue laws vs. individual liberties
campaign finance reform (and how to deal with the court decisions that corporate contributions=1st amendment speech)
effective enforcement of laws vs. right to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, if you're not harming anyone
war on drugs - more of the same, or how should it be changed?
Alan Greenspan - follow his advice on fiscal policy, or keep cutting taxes/spending at the expense of future debt? schedule for reducing national debt to sub trillion levels? don't offer a 20 year plan with all the pleasure at the beginning and pain at the end, or it will be replaced with the next such 20 year plan...
long-term plan for social security - raise taxes, or means-test? what is the justification for taking money from working class families and giving it to wealthy retirees?
consumption tax vs flat-rate income tax vs progressive income tax vs corporate income tax vs capital gains tax (should income from shares of a company or bonds be sheltered at lower rates than personal income?)
revision of patent law/policy to compensate for the glut of stifling, non-novel software/business-model patents being granted
gun control
abortion
funding of basic research - what political strings attached?
treatment of minority religious/moral beliefs; separation of church and state
and last, but not least, foreign policy
preferred legal scholarship/ideology of appointed federal judges (including an expected 2-4 supremes, see CNN article; which is more important - matching ideology, or competence and intellectual honesty and legal scholarship? (bonus points if the answer isn't "both")
I realize these aren't properly formed questions, but I would like to see the selected questions address these issues (and probably more I have neglected to mention), preferably without outright telling the candidates what it is we want to hear (don't make it easy for them by letting them know your turn-offs - I won't say "lie" - well, okay, I just did, but the politician will target their answers to avoid losing their audience).
The problem is that client movement is predicted rather than synchronous from the server. You don't want to come around a corner, see nothing, because the server doesn't think you are there yet and hasn't sent you the information about something that will, after a round trip delay, pop into existence... Yes, you can do better than what the Quake engine games do (region to region visibility lists), but because players can change direction unexpectedly, the server doesn't really know where you'll be / what you'll be able to see by the time its updates reach you. You can tighten the filtering of what the server sends to clients, but they will just lie about their latency to get a broader uncertainty range. Or you can be strict, and only people with truly low latency will be able to see an entity as soon as they come around the corner. It's even more complicated when clients predict not only their own movement, but that of other entities.
As he explained in the interview, Stallman wants people to call it GNU/Linux because he wants people to be aware of the political message behind the software they are using. If it's "open source" and "Linux" that gets the headlines rather than "free software" and "GNU", then awareness of the philosophy he is promoting (because he believes it is morally right) suffers. GNU wants acknowledgment so that their ideology can get exposure. This does seem incongruous next to their ethic that the utility of the work is what matters, not who owns it. I think the pragmatic concerns won out - they are waging a propoganda war that must be won. I don't think the analogy "consider the great artists and artisans of medieval times, who didn't even sign their names to their work. To them, the name of the artist was not important. What mattered was that the work was done--and the purpose it would serve" is so pivotal that it amounts to a "huge hole in their whole argument for free software", nor do I feel that the conflict between it and GNU's wanting acknowledgment of their contribution to what everyone calls "Linux" is hypocrisy. They deny the emotional argument that the artisan must necessarily own their work, and demand recognition (*NOT* ownership) for pragmatic reasons - and nowhere in the free software philosophy is it espoused that artisans don't deserve recognition for their work - just that they ought not to keep people from using it.
Slashdot Mirror
Forebearers?
The alternative to funding religious charities is not your bogus government-dictated-atheism strawman, but simply the status quo: a society with real religious (and secular) freedom.
"Helping others help themselves" by taking money from everyone's paycheck and giving it to the local church to do feel-good charity? Come on. Where do you get from "religions exist; acknowledge their existence" to "give religious charities government funding"?
While there are some actual real world benefits to most religious charitable organizations, these charitable arms do in fact serve in part to promote their religion.
And, it is actually very common, when enough charitable money is flowing in, for the charitable workers to take more and more for their own purposes, perhaps without realizing it.
Therefore, I oppose government funding (even with oversight) of religious charities because:
1) it is in fact monetary support of the religious organization behind the charity (money is fungible, and the charitable activities do serve to promote the religion).
2) I should be able to choose where to allocate my charitable dollars. Government bureaucracy for assigning grants for charitable work will result in less care being given to the actual charitable use of the money than when the donors take a personal interest in who they give their money to and what it is used for.
3) If we simply must have "mandatory charity" I would prefer it be performed directly by government bureaucracy (that at least is subject to central oversight and control, and could in theory develop some degree of professionalism and fairness), rather than indirectly through government and then through church bureaucracy.
Joel really dropped the ball on this one. He neglects to consider that most non-trivial software written today that still works in Win95 at some point either explicitly detects the OS version and assumes the platform will behave as tested, or performs some undocumented ritual to work around flaws in the particular incarnation of Windows.
Of course, well-written applications staying within the bounds of documented Windows Platform APIs *should* work on a perfect WINE. But, the idea that Win95 is a reasonable, stable target that WINE could easily catch up with is laughable - it takes a long time to pin down the right set of undocumented behaviors (that sounded euphemistic for "bugs") that will satisfy all the apps targetting them.
Your rebuttal is also a strong one - considering that installs of Office on old versions of Windows require a reboot, it does seem likely that core OS files are being altered (stuff like the MFC DLLs should just make calls to core Win32, so they should in theory work as well under WINE as the real thing).
I credited and linked to interesting-people in my writeup, but apparently it didn't survive the editorial chopping block. IP is a sort of more intelligently editted/moderated Slashdot, but without the annoying high-churn discussions :)
For the server(s) to authorize character changes to a signed, client-stored character, they would have to perform an expensive public-key-encryption step for every change. Hardware crypto coprocessors notwithstanding, this is infeasible.
- constitutional amendment, if necessary, to prevent riders (or make removing them easier) on must-pass bills?
- enforcing extra-constitutional national policy on states via block grants with strings attached
- federal blue laws vs. local blue laws vs. individual liberties
- campaign finance reform (and how to deal with the court decisions that corporate contributions=1st amendment speech)
- effective enforcement of laws vs. right to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, if you're not harming anyone
- war on drugs - more of the same, or how should it be changed?
- Alan Greenspan - follow his advice on fiscal policy, or keep cutting taxes/spending at the expense of future debt? schedule for reducing national debt to sub trillion levels? don't offer a 20 year plan with all the pleasure at the beginning and pain at the end, or it will be replaced with the next such 20 year plan
...
- long-term plan for social security - raise taxes, or means-test? what is the justification for taking money from working class families and giving it to wealthy retirees?
- consumption tax vs flat-rate income tax vs progressive income tax vs corporate income tax vs capital gains tax (should income from shares of a company or bonds be sheltered at lower rates than personal income?)
- revision of patent law/policy to compensate for the glut of stifling, non-novel software/business-model patents being granted
- gun control
- abortion
- funding of basic research - what political strings attached?
- treatment of minority religious/moral beliefs; separation of church and state
- and last, but not least, foreign policy
- preferred legal scholarship/ideology of appointed federal judges (including an expected 2-4 supremes, see CNN article; which is more important - matching ideology, or competence and intellectual honesty and legal scholarship? (bonus points if the answer isn't "both")
I realize these aren't properly formed questions, but I would like to see the selected questions address these issues (and probably more I have neglected to mention), preferably without outright telling the candidates what it is we want to hear (don't make it easy for them by letting them know your turn-offs - I won't say "lie" - well, okay, I just did, but the politician will target their answers to avoid losing their audience).The problem is that client movement is predicted rather than synchronous from the server. You don't want to come around a corner, see nothing, because the server doesn't think you are there yet and hasn't sent you the information about something that will, after a round trip delay, pop into existence ... Yes, you can do better than what the Quake engine games do (region to region visibility lists), but because players can change direction unexpectedly, the server doesn't really know where you'll be / what you'll be able to see by the time its updates reach you. You can tighten the filtering of what the server sends to clients, but they will just lie about their latency to get a broader uncertainty range. Or you can be strict, and only people with truly low latency will be able to see an entity as soon as they come around the corner. It's even more complicated when clients predict not only their own movement, but that of other entities.
As he explained in the interview, Stallman wants people to call it GNU/Linux because he wants people to be aware of the political message behind the software they are using. If it's "open source" and "Linux" that gets the headlines rather than "free software" and "GNU", then awareness of the philosophy he is promoting (because he believes it is morally right) suffers. GNU wants acknowledgment so that their ideology can get exposure. This does seem incongruous next to their ethic that the utility of the work is what matters, not who owns it. I think the pragmatic concerns won out - they are waging a propoganda war that must be won. I don't think the analogy "consider the great artists and artisans of medieval times, who didn't even sign their names to their work. To them, the name of the artist was not important. What mattered was that the work was done--and the purpose it would serve" is so pivotal that it amounts to a "huge hole in their whole argument for free software", nor do I feel that the conflict between it and GNU's wanting acknowledgment of their contribution to what everyone calls "Linux" is hypocrisy. They deny the emotional argument that the artisan must necessarily own their work, and demand recognition (*NOT* ownership) for pragmatic reasons - and nowhere in the free software philosophy is it espoused that artisans don't deserve recognition for their work - just that they ought not to keep people from using it.