I don't want to have to use some install manager or try to figure out how to get some script to run from the terminal in order to install an application. I simply want to be able to click and launch it, and have it install.
I see this a lot, and I just don't get it. I understand a lot of the other gripes people have with Linux, but one thing I've always thought was so fantastically much better handled in the Linux world than anywhere else was software installation. Please explain, how can it be easier to have to search of the website of the software of your choice, find the download link and then install it than it is to be presented with a list of virtually all software you can think of and pick the ones you want to install.
Or maybe I'm just spoiled with Debian, and other Linux distros don't really handle this well at all (as rumors imply)?
I just auto accept every quest then look up the cords in thottbot or wowhead. run to those cords, do quest, run back.
Fascinating. With a few rare exceptions, I find that it's usually faster to just read the damn quest descriptions (which generally tell you exactly where to go) than to head off to thottbot for coordinates. Yes, really.
I happened to make a fresh install of Debian just the other day. I picked "desktop" install, and lo' and behold, the first thing I saw when I logged in was a balloon that popped up and said 'Updates are ready for your computer, click here to install them'.
Now, my preferred software for doing package management is still apt-get, but there's no shortage of more... "user friendly" alternatives.
In this case, a technical "normie" is incompetent.
The word incompetent is not necessarily an insult. You can call me an incompetent surgeon, bridge designer, president or security solution designer, and I won't take offence. It is simply an (accurate) description of my lack of competence in these areas.
"Using proprietary software for any mission critical part of your business is reckless."
I'm sure Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Hewlett Packard, Dell, Siebel, SAS, Intel, AMD, Apple, and CA will be revising their mission statements shortly. Perhaps the most idiotic comment I have ever seen posted on Slashdot, ever.
Nonsense. It's spot on.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove by your list. Either you mean that they supply mission critical software to people (which they do!), but that is not really relevant. Many profitable businesses are built around abusing the recklessness of their customers. Otherwise you mean that they use (other people's!) proprietary software for mission critical tasks (which I assume most of them do). That's not really relevant either, as they're all big enough to bully their suppliers.
However, most businesses don't have the same weight as these giants, and thus the situation changes. What GP says is that you lose control over mission critical tasks by using proprietary software for them. Essentially, you lose control over your business. This is not rhetoric, this is a simple fact. If you don't control your software, you don't control the tasks it solves. If those tasks are mission critical, you don't control your mission critical tasks. Whether that qualifies as reckless or not is a matter of opinion, of course, but saying it is is hardly "the most idiotic [...] on Slashdot, ever".
This is the major reason why open source software even exists!
For all of you who believe the universe and/or the planet would be better of without our race than stop being a hypocrite and off yourself for the good of the universe.
As a vhemter I love this spin. It so completely misses the point. The reason why I feel that humanity is bad is that it, in the long run has a destructive influence on its surroundings. Wherever humanity spreads, other life withers and die. However, there is little reason, and sometimes directly harmful to kill off specific individuals. Shortening the life span of any individual being by a couple of decades won't really have that great an impact on our environment, so there's little reason to deny an existing life small rewards there are for having endured this long. It will also remove a person which is likely a good influence on her surroundings (from an environmental perspective), and considering today's birth rates, suicide would be a pointless gesture that would have little to no effect and only cause grief for people close to us.
A much more sensible way to lessen your destructive impact on the life around you is simply not to breed. You have saved the world (and universe!) not only from a few decades of one human, but potentially millennia of hundreds or thousands of destructive people. And this, without killing anyone, and without causing a single shred of pain, fear or agony for anyone. You will also still be around for a few more years, and able to use that time to work to get your fellow humans to act more responsibly.
And then next time country (x) invades country (y), country (y) will be all wanting us to help again, and complaining we didn't come in quickly enough. It happens every 50 years or so, seems to be overdue by a decade or two.
The thing is that up until the eighties, USA was rather popular with large parts of the world. Not all of it, but large parts of it. Only in small part due to military action during the World Wars. This is something that has changed in the last twenty years.
I'd also like to know where you get this "all" from - seems like one of those statements which is a generalization with few facts to back it up.
Hate is a very general term, so of course it's a generalization. On top of that, countries are abstract constructs and incapable of hating, so the entire discussion is pointless, hmm? What I have noticed though, is that people I speak to, pretty much wherever they come from, express very negative opinions about the USA nowadays. Granted, my sample is primarily from the "western" world (Europe, Australia, South Africa, Canada), but there's a few from "the far east" (Japan, South Korea, India) and South America. Admittedly, I have only had words with one single person from the middle east (Lebanon) so that sample is rather poor. OTOH, it was already established earlier in this thread that the hate had always been present in those parts of the world. However, if you take my lack of "evidence" as an indication that there has not been a major shift in world opinion about the USA over the last decades, I believe you are making a very grave mistake.
So if people who don't get all the facts, and choose to blame only Bush for the actions of the entire legislative _and_ executive branch, well, they can hate the entire country out of ignorance, there's nothing anyone can do to stop them.
Oh, please. You can't expect people to have a deep insight into the political parties and branches of government of a country just in order to have an opinion about it? How well do you know the political parties and branches of government of the 193 other countries in the world? Ever had an opinion about any one of these countries? I think you overestimate how much people care about Bush. He sure is a criminal, and ought to be put in jail, but nobody ever suggested he's the only one. What he is though, is your chief of state, and thus the main representative of your country towards the rest of the world. Part of the job description of representing something is that you're the one to take the blame when whatever you're representing does something wrong.
"Far as I'm concerned, better we subsidize biofuels from US sources, than give money to countries who hate us"
Right now and until your current president steps down, it means just about every country
If you think that until Bush was in office, the muslim countries didn't hate us, then your lack of history knowledge is astonishing.
The "muslim countries" may be influential, but they're not the entire world. GP is spot on. Before the Bushes, some countries hated the US. Now all of them do, including your old friends.
If my choice of words annoy you, troll, I beg you pardon. English is not my native language, so I have to do with what I learn from reading what you and your fellow native speakers feed me. Perhaps we should have this conversation in Swedish instead, so there would be less risk of me getting the occasional sentence wrong.
I enjoy gaming, but I do it when there's literally nothing else to do - when I'm on the bus or waiting for the bus or when I'm on the train.
Funny. I use those exact moments to read books. I guess reading qualifies as literally nothing then?;) No - of course it doesn't. It's just that we enjoy different things at different times. However, accusing people of "wasting time" just because you have a hard time understanding what makes something enjoyable for them is nothing but insulting.
Could everybody get back to coding and kiss politics goodbye?
When we run the risk of being sued because we accidentally infringe patents? When we must reinvent a solution to a problem that has already been solved a thousand times over? When the very software we use to produce said code is crippled, and we can't do anything about it?
We did not ask to be politicians. It was forced upon us. And most definitely not by RMS. He was just one of the first to see where things were going.
Apple's approach to all of their 'revolutionary' stylistic stuff: "We stole it first. You can't have it!"
Well, at least it's a good thing to see that you are setting an example by leaving politics behind;)
Why is there more than one linux distribution in the first place?
Or more than one brand of soda? Or more than one brand of cars? Or more than one country to be administered? Or more than one faith?
Your question is silly. Because people are different. And they want different things. As soon as people are able to choose different paths, they will do so. The only reason why Windows is only one, is because it's controlled by a dictatorship (yes, a for profit company is a dictatorship). Even there though, people will divert along different paths, as soon as they possibly can.
I used to be furious that our soldiers were dying for a lie in the desert...then I learned that the military voted Bush in 2004...88%...and they kept spouting the usual lies on TV. I quit caring about them.
How about the thousands of Iraqi people whose deaths those troops are directly or indirectly responsible for? Do you care about them? I'm fairly sure they didn't vote Bush into office.
Patriotism is for suckers. Citizenship is a business relationship, and that is IT! It's give and take. What can the country do for me, in return for my support.
The reason why patriotism is disgusting is not only that it assumes that some people (fellow citizens) more important than others (foreign citizens), but that even non sentient constructs ("your" country) are more important than people. You seem to be subscribing to at least the former of those two delusions.
I realize that picking on the CIA for what they do is all good fun for many, but the CIA is ultimately a servant of its masters - most often the president
Yes. "I was only following orders" has been known to be a valid excuse for criminal and immoral acts.
Does your chief of state actually have the authority to order people to break the law?
And yet the FSF hasn't gone after hardware manufacturers who provide binary drivers for free OSes even though they're already in violation of GPL2.
Care to elaborate on exactly what manufacturers provide binary only drivers for GPL2 licensed kernels to which the FSF holds copyright? Read the entire question before answering.
I've always considered Microsoft a dangerous beast. I mean, given their size and their success, they must have some really smart people there, no matter if their products are crap most of the time. Then this joker comes along and gives me that warm fuzzy feeling. Is this what they have to offer as head of their Linux Labs? Ah, we're safe.
"[Linux developers] are full-time employees, with 401K stock options. Some work for IBM or Oracle. What does that mean? It means that Linux doesn't exist any more in 2007. There is no free software movement. If someone says Linux is about Love, Peace and Harmony, I would tell them to do their research. There is no free software movement any more."
The guy clearly hasn't understood a thing. The power of Open Source lies not in volunteers working for free (although they have been extremely important), but rather in the GPL (and other free licenses) and open standards that are ensuring the users' freedom, protecting them from vendor lock in, and giving any developer the possibility to address any problem that can be described (by users or by themselves).
He can stick his so called innovation where the sun doesn't shine. Who wants new utilities, sci-fi-esque as they may be, unless they can control what they do?
That means this movement, while successful from one point of view (they continually succeed with themselves), can by definition never be globally successful, unless they manage to destroy the whole planet to prevent all who disagree and love life and reproduction from doing so.
Oh, I love life. Very much so. So much, in fact, that I'm ready to sacrifice a little temporary happiness of my own part in order to ensure that there will continue to be life. The point is that all life is valuable. Not just humans. Humans however, as opposed to virtually every other organism, pose a real danger to pretty much all life on earth, and does do a disproportionally large amount of damage to not only themselves, but also all other life forms. If you believe I hate life, you got it all wrong. I love life so much that I do not want to risk it just for the sake of one species - even if I happen to belong to that specific species.
Of course, this doesn't sound very logical (killing someone in order to save them)...
VHEMT has never talked about killing people. Just stop making more. Those already alive will die off eventually. That's good enough by far.
So I'm all for continuing the way we've done throughout all history: those who don't want to live, please go ahead, and those who do, please do so too - and all without trying to convince each other from your own point of view, if possible, because that can be a little aggravating to have to endure it.
Again, you misunderstand. Nobody wants you to stop living. I'd just be greatful if you offered organisms other than your own offspring a chance to do so as well. A chance we are effectively destroying by populating the planet with too many humans. While it is a bit aggrevating to sometimes have to endure listening to an opinion you might not agree with - or even have considered before - I'd say that it's a fairly light burden to bear compared to the aggrevation caused by knowing that thousand of people die horribly in starvation and malnutrition daily because of over population, or knowing that species disappear because humanity is destroying their habitats.
I fully support you in your convictions and wish you the best of success with your goal...
(because that will free up resources for MY kids)
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it takes a bit more than that to get me riled up. Nice try, though.
The ironic thing is that in your statement you only validate VHEMT's points. Human beings are requiring resources from the earth. Resources that you admit are not plentiful enough to support the population base we have - if they were, none would have to be "freed up" for your kids.
I congratulate you for having come to the most fundamental conclusion needed to save this planet, and wish you good luck in taking the next step in your thought process:)
Now, most people who subscribe to this "movement" are doing it as a joke, or because they are rationalizing the fact that they don't have kids.
I don't know. I've been (unknowingly, for the first couple of years) "subscribing" to this "movement" since I was about fifteen years old. At that time I surely wasn't rationalizing the fact that I didn't have any kids, as it's not very uncommon, at least where I live, for fifteen year olds to be childless. And it's certainly not a joke. Well, the movement is a bit of a joke - all movements are - but the idea is not. I've never spoken to any "subscriber" who seemed to think it a joke, even though some go more or less far (not everybody thinks extinction is strictly necessary). As for how large part of the movement is rationalizing being childless, I honestly can't say. It would probably take trained psychologists to answer that.
But some of them really seem to be arguing honestly for self-extinction of the human race.
Aye. Most of us, I'd say. Me included. I'm not going to start ranting about why it's a good idea to stop reproducing - this isn't the forum for it. I just wanted to point out that yes, the movement does, as you say, exists, and while we might be "kooks" from someone's point of view, we're definitely thinking rationally about concept.
sharing a simple piece of information that can be changed at any time with someone you have no good reason to be keeping secrets from
I can think of several people that could know the password after that telephone conversation, some of which the people having the conversation won't even know exist. One of many reasons to never share your password with anyone is that in the act of sharing it you expose it to potential (untrusted) snoopers, even if you trust the intended recipient. Frankly, the whole argument was probably the poorest I've seen against the proposal. "I don't want a security system that ensures I'm me since I want other people to be able to fake being me." That's just plain nonsense.
Fine - if the primate deserves equal protection under law, then he should get equal treatment under law as far as paying taxes, sending his offspring to school, not assaulting people by climbing on them, being hygenic, etc.
Even humans are granted basic human rights without adhering to these rules. You're not allowed to lock me up, torture me and kill me for my meat & skin just because I don't pay taxes or send my offspring (heh) to school. What I cannot expect is that you pay for my living (welfare), or take part in your economy (use money). I'm sure most animals would be content with that deal; if we stop locking them up, torturing them or killing them for morally questionable reasons I'm sure they can live without the welfare cheque every month, and I even think they won't whine too much about not having the money to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to have to use some install manager or try to figure out how to get some script to run from the terminal in order to install an application. I simply want to be able to click and launch it, and have it install.
I see this a lot, and I just don't get it. I understand a lot of the other gripes people have with Linux, but one thing I've always thought was so fantastically much better handled in the Linux world than anywhere else was software installation.
Please explain, how can it be easier to have to search of the website of the software of your choice, find the download link and then install it than it is to be presented with a list of virtually all software you can think of and pick the ones you want to install.
Or maybe I'm just spoiled with Debian, and other Linux distros don't really handle this well at all (as rumors imply)?
Fascinating. With a few rare exceptions, I find that it's usually faster to just read the damn quest descriptions (which generally tell you exactly where to go) than to head off to thottbot for coordinates.
Yes, really.
I happened to make a fresh install of Debian just the other day. I picked "desktop" install, and lo' and behold, the first thing I saw when I logged in was a balloon that popped up and said 'Updates are ready for your computer, click here to install them'.
Now, my preferred software for doing package management is still apt-get, but there's no shortage of more... "user friendly" alternatives.
In this case, a technical "normie" is incompetent.
The word incompetent is not necessarily an insult. You can call me an incompetent surgeon, bridge designer, president or security solution designer, and I won't take offence.
It is simply an (accurate) description of my lack of competence in these areas.
Nonsense. It's spot on.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove by your list. Either you mean that they supply mission critical software to people (which they do!), but that is not really relevant. Many profitable businesses are built around abusing the recklessness of their customers. Otherwise you mean that they use (other people's!) proprietary software for mission critical tasks (which I assume most of them do). That's not really relevant either, as they're all big enough to bully their suppliers.
However, most businesses don't have the same weight as these giants, and thus the situation changes. What GP says is that you lose control over mission critical tasks by using proprietary software for them. Essentially, you lose control over your business.
This is not rhetoric, this is a simple fact. If you don't control your software, you don't control the tasks it solves. If those tasks are mission critical, you don't control your mission critical tasks. Whether that qualifies as reckless or not is a matter of opinion, of course, but saying it is is hardly "the most idiotic [...] on Slashdot, ever".
This is the major reason why open source software even exists!
For all of you who believe the universe and/or the planet would be better of without our race than stop being a hypocrite and off yourself for the good of the universe.
As a vhemter I love this spin. It so completely misses the point. The reason why I feel that humanity is bad is that it, in the long run has a destructive influence on its surroundings. Wherever humanity spreads, other life withers and die.
However, there is little reason, and sometimes directly harmful to kill off specific individuals. Shortening the life span of any individual being by a couple of decades won't really have that great an impact on our environment, so there's little reason to deny an existing life small rewards there are for having endured this long. It will also remove a person which is likely a good influence on her surroundings (from an environmental perspective), and considering today's birth rates, suicide would be a pointless gesture that would have little to no effect and only cause grief for people close to us.
A much more sensible way to lessen your destructive impact on the life around you is simply not to breed. You have saved the world (and universe!) not only from a few decades of one human, but potentially millennia of hundreds or thousands of destructive people. And this, without killing anyone, and without causing a single shred of pain, fear or agony for anyone. You will also still be around for a few more years, and able to use that time to work to get your fellow humans to act more responsibly.
I dont think my mail server needs to be disconnected from the internet before it will let me read the mail that's on it...
:)
Given the behavior of a typical mail virus, that would probably not be a very bad feature though
More sources of true randomness:
- Reasons for women to get upset
- Promises from politicians
- Patent applications
- Marketing terminology
The thing is that up until the eighties, USA was rather popular with large parts of the world. Not all of it, but large parts of it. Only in small part due to military action during the World Wars. This is something that has changed in the last twenty years.
Hate is a very general term, so of course it's a generalization. On top of that, countries are abstract constructs and incapable of hating, so the entire discussion is pointless, hmm?
What I have noticed though, is that people I speak to, pretty much wherever they come from, express very negative opinions about the USA nowadays. Granted, my sample is primarily from the "western" world (Europe, Australia, South Africa, Canada), but there's a few from "the far east" (Japan, South Korea, India) and South America. Admittedly, I have only had words with one single person from the middle east (Lebanon) so that sample is rather poor. OTOH, it was already established earlier in this thread that the hate had always been present in those parts of the world.
However, if you take my lack of "evidence" as an indication that there has not been a major shift in world opinion about the USA over the last decades, I believe you are making a very grave mistake.
Oh, please. You can't expect people to have a deep insight into the political parties and branches of government of a country just in order to have an opinion about it? How well do you know the political parties and branches of government of the 193 other countries in the world? Ever had an opinion about any one of these countries?
I think you overestimate how much people care about Bush. He sure is a criminal, and ought to be put in jail, but nobody ever suggested he's the only one. What he is though, is your chief of state, and thus the main representative of your country towards the rest of the world. Part of the job description of representing something is that you're the one to take the blame when whatever you're representing does something wrong.
The "muslim countries" may be influential, but they're not the entire world. GP is spot on. Before the Bushes, some countries hated the US. Now all of them do, including your old friends.
If my choice of words annoy you, troll, I beg you pardon. English is not my native language, so I have to do with what I learn from reading what you and your fellow native speakers feed me.
Perhaps we should have this conversation in Swedish instead, so there would be less risk of me getting the occasional sentence wrong.
I enjoy gaming, but I do it when there's literally nothing else to do - when I'm on the bus or waiting for the bus or when I'm on the train.
;)
Funny. I use those exact moments to read books. I guess reading qualifies as literally nothing then?
No - of course it doesn't. It's just that we enjoy different things at different times. However, accusing people of "wasting time" just because you have a hard time understanding what makes something enjoyable for them is nothing but insulting.
They are, ultimately, all timesinks - which is why those of us with to-do lists longer than our lifespans either don't get them or don't use them.
Nah. People's To-Do lists are probably of similar length. The difference is that some prioritize the "Have fun" entry higher than others.
Could everybody get back to coding and kiss politics goodbye?
;)
When we run the risk of being sued because we accidentally infringe patents? When we must reinvent a solution to a problem that has already been solved a thousand times over? When the very software we use to produce said code is crippled, and we can't do anything about it?
We did not ask to be politicians. It was forced upon us. And most definitely not by RMS. He was just one of the first to see where things were going.
Apple's approach to all of their 'revolutionary' stylistic stuff: "We stole it first. You can't have it!"
Well, at least it's a good thing to see that you are setting an example by leaving politics behind
Or more than one brand of soda?
Or more than one brand of cars?
Or more than one country to be administered?
Or more than one faith?
Your question is silly. Because people are different. And they want different things. As soon as people are able to choose different paths, they will do so. The only reason why Windows is only one, is because it's controlled by a dictatorship (yes, a for profit company is a dictatorship). Even there though, people will divert along different paths, as soon as they possibly can.
I used to be furious that our soldiers were dying for a lie in the desert...then I learned that the military voted Bush in 2004...88%...and they kept spouting the usual lies on TV. I quit caring about them.
How about the thousands of Iraqi people whose deaths those troops are directly or indirectly responsible for? Do you care about them? I'm fairly sure they didn't vote Bush into office.
Patriotism is for suckers. Citizenship is a business relationship, and that is IT! It's give and take. What can the country do for me, in return for my support.
The reason why patriotism is disgusting is not only that it assumes that some people (fellow citizens) more important than others (foreign citizens), but that even non sentient constructs ("your" country) are more important than people. You seem to be subscribing to at least the former of those two delusions.
Ads, of course.
Yes. "I was only following orders" has been known to be a valid excuse for criminal and immoral acts.
Does your chief of state actually have the authority to order people to break the law?
Care to elaborate on exactly what manufacturers provide binary only drivers for GPL2 licensed kernels to which the FSF holds copyright?
Read the entire question before answering.
I've always considered Microsoft a dangerous beast. I mean, given their size and their success, they must have some really smart people there, no matter if their products are crap most of the time. Then this joker comes along and gives me that warm fuzzy feeling. Is this what they have to offer as head of their Linux Labs? Ah, we're safe.
"[Linux developers] are full-time employees, with 401K stock options. Some work for IBM or Oracle. What does that mean? It means that Linux doesn't exist any more in 2007. There is no free software movement. If someone says Linux is about Love, Peace and Harmony, I would tell them to do their research. There is no free software movement any more."
The guy clearly hasn't understood a thing. The power of Open Source lies not in volunteers working for free (although they have been extremely important), but rather in the GPL (and other free licenses) and open standards that are ensuring the users' freedom, protecting them from vendor lock in, and giving any developer the possibility to address any problem that can be described (by users or by themselves).
He can stick his so called innovation where the sun doesn't shine. Who wants new utilities, sci-fi-esque as they may be, unless they can control what they do?
Excuse me - save the planet for WHOM?
Countless of non human organisms.
That means this movement, while successful from one point of view (they continually succeed with themselves), can by definition never be globally successful, unless they manage to destroy the whole planet to prevent all who disagree and love life and reproduction from doing so.
Oh, I love life. Very much so. So much, in fact, that I'm ready to sacrifice a little temporary happiness of my own part in order to ensure that there will continue to be life. The point is that all life is valuable. Not just humans. Humans however, as opposed to virtually every other organism, pose a real danger to pretty much all life on earth, and does do a disproportionally large amount of damage to not only themselves, but also all other life forms. If you believe I hate life, you got it all wrong. I love life so much that I do not want to risk it just for the sake of one species - even if I happen to belong to that specific species.
Of course, this doesn't sound very logical (killing someone in order to save them)...
VHEMT has never talked about killing people. Just stop making more. Those already alive will die off eventually. That's good enough by far.
So I'm all for continuing the way we've done throughout all history: those who don't want to live, please go ahead, and those who do, please do so too - and all without trying to convince each other from your own point of view, if possible, because that can be a little aggravating to have to endure it.
Again, you misunderstand. Nobody wants you to stop living. I'd just be greatful if you offered organisms other than your own offspring a chance to do so as well. A chance we are effectively destroying by populating the planet with too many humans.
While it is a bit aggrevating to sometimes have to endure listening to an opinion you might not agree with - or even have considered before - I'd say that it's a fairly light burden to bear compared to the aggrevation caused by knowing that thousand of people die horribly in starvation and malnutrition daily because of over population, or knowing that species disappear because humanity is destroying their habitats.
I fully support you in your convictions and wish you the best of success with your goal...
:)
(because that will free up resources for MY kids)
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it takes a bit more than that to get me riled up. Nice try, though.
The ironic thing is that in your statement you only validate VHEMT's points. Human beings are requiring resources from the earth. Resources that you admit are not plentiful enough to support the population base we have - if they were, none would have to be "freed up" for your kids.
I congratulate you for having come to the most fundamental conclusion needed to save this planet, and wish you good luck in taking the next step in your thought process
Now, most people who subscribe to this "movement" are doing it as a joke, or because they are rationalizing the fact that they don't have kids.
:)
I don't know. I've been (unknowingly, for the first couple of years) "subscribing" to this "movement" since I was about fifteen years old. At that time I surely wasn't rationalizing the fact that I didn't have any kids, as it's not very uncommon, at least where I live, for fifteen year olds to be childless. And it's certainly not a joke. Well, the movement is a bit of a joke - all movements are - but the idea is not. I've never spoken to any "subscriber" who seemed to think it a joke, even though some go more or less far (not everybody thinks extinction is strictly necessary). As for how large part of the movement is rationalizing being childless, I honestly can't say. It would probably take trained psychologists to answer that.
But some of them really seem to be arguing honestly for self-extinction of the human race.
Aye. Most of us, I'd say. Me included.
I'm not going to start ranting about why it's a good idea to stop reproducing - this isn't the forum for it. I just wanted to point out that yes, the movement does, as you say, exists, and while we might be "kooks" from someone's point of view, we're definitely thinking rationally about concept.
Thank you for not putting us down
sharing a simple piece of information that can be changed at any time with someone you have no good reason to be keeping secrets from
I can think of several people that could know the password after that telephone conversation, some of which the people having the conversation won't even know exist. One of many reasons to never share your password with anyone is that in the act of sharing it you expose it to potential (untrusted) snoopers, even if you trust the intended recipient.
Frankly, the whole argument was probably the poorest I've seen against the proposal. "I don't want a security system that ensures I'm me since I want other people to be able to fake being me." That's just plain nonsense.
Fine - if the primate deserves equal protection under law, then he should get equal treatment under law as far as paying taxes, sending his offspring to school, not assaulting people by climbing on them, being hygenic, etc.
Even humans are granted basic human rights without adhering to these rules. You're not allowed to lock me up, torture me and kill me for my meat & skin just because I don't pay taxes or send my offspring (heh) to school. What I cannot expect is that you pay for my living (welfare), or take part in your economy (use money).
I'm sure most animals would be content with that deal; if we stop locking them up, torturing them or killing them for morally questionable reasons I'm sure they can live without the welfare cheque every month, and I even think they won't whine too much about not having the money to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster.