Don't confuse law and ethics together. Although many of their functions overlap, these are completely separate beasts. Laws are in place to protect individuals' rights as defined by their society. Ethics are derived from fundamental morals. Morals are shared by all people. Everybody knows it is wrong to kill another person. Everybody knows it is wrong to cause deliberate harm to another. (The insanity plea was something lawyers came up with so they could make money defending guilty parties.)
People have the right to live. Does this mean that weapons manufacturors/vendors shouldn't make or sell items that could be used for this purpose? Staying strictly with ethics, my answer is No. It means that it is wrong for me to use such a product to do harm. In the eyes of the law, however, it is seen as Yes, because these items, regardless of their intentions, are used primarily for promoting violence.
The same can be said about computer software. Linux has numerous legitament uses. On the other hand, it serves as an ideal platform for cracking and developing harmful software. Ethically, it is the user's responsibility to avoid causing harm with the product. In this case, the law agrees, since the majority of Linux use is not malicious. Viruses would be a better contrasting example. A computer virus is a program, like any other. As long as the user does not use it to inflict damage on others, a virus is harmless. The law, however, would find viruses illegal because their most widespread use is malevolent.
Ethically, the end-user is responsible for any actions taken. The requirement here is that the end-user is knowledgable and responsible enough to do what is right. Because people, in general, are ignorant and irresponsible, the law has to step in where it may be contrary to ethical beliefs. Because time has proven that people will use guns primarily for violence, there are laws in place to restrict ownership/usage. Because statistics show that the majority of Napster users will abuse the product to violate copyright laws, the law will rule Napster as illegal.
I, for one, would like a society where the law doesn't have to step in like this to maintain order. People, as of now, are unable to create and maintain such a society, and the current one is the best compromise developed thus far.
Ahem. Please do research before making claims such as this.:) Most of Linux's thread libraries use userland threads, not kernel-supported ones. However, the Linux kernel has kernel suppor for threads with the clone() system call and the Linuxthreads package takes advantage of this to provide kernel-supported threads. Userland threads can't be split across CPUs, but kernel-supported threads can. btw, threads still DO context-switch but at a lower cost of CPU cycles. Basic OS stuff, people!
Joshua brings up a good point. I am a Christian (Episcopalian with strong Roman Catholic leanings) and I see nothing incompatible with my faith and hacking/programming/net-srufing or even science in general.
Religion is a way to live your life and a way to believe in something larger than ourselves. Attacks on "the institutions" and organized religion are getting out of control. The Net is no more a "threat" to organized religion than was the printing press. If anything, it allows religions to get their message out to more people because they are no longer restricted to personal contact to broadcast their messages.
I have some friends who are as much a hacker as myself who have strong personal faiths. That the recent movements towards a personal faith that each person decides individually is the best way to go. Organized religion provides a greater "community" of believers to interact, especially when they belive similarly.
I can't say it better than Joshua:
Many who call themselves hackers are not. Many who call themselves ``Christians'' are not. Let us not confuse the real with the false; a Christian does not commit violent acts, and a hacker does not destroy other people's filesystems. I do not like it when the media misrepresent the hacker as a person who likes to % rm -rf/*&*. Let's not do the same towards religion.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't confuse law and ethics together. Although many of their functions overlap, these are completely separate beasts. Laws are in place to protect individuals' rights as defined by their society. Ethics are derived from fundamental morals. Morals are shared by all people. Everybody knows it is wrong to kill another person. Everybody knows it is wrong to cause deliberate harm to another. (The insanity plea was something lawyers came up with so they could make money defending guilty parties.)
People have the right to live. Does this mean that weapons manufacturors/vendors shouldn't make or sell items that could be used for this purpose? Staying strictly with ethics, my answer is No. It means that it is wrong for me to use such a product to do harm. In the eyes of the law, however, it is seen as Yes, because these items, regardless of their intentions, are used primarily for promoting violence.
The same can be said about computer software. Linux has numerous legitament uses. On the other hand, it serves as an ideal platform for cracking and developing harmful software. Ethically, it is the user's responsibility to avoid causing harm with the product. In this case, the law agrees, since the majority of Linux use is not malicious. Viruses would be a better contrasting example. A computer virus is a program, like any other. As long as the user does not use it to inflict damage on others, a virus is harmless. The law, however, would find viruses illegal because their most widespread use is malevolent.
Ethically, the end-user is responsible for any actions taken. The requirement here is that the end-user is knowledgable and responsible enough to do what is right. Because people, in general, are ignorant and irresponsible, the law has to step in where it may be contrary to ethical beliefs. Because time has proven that people will use guns primarily for violence, there are laws in place to restrict ownership/usage. Because statistics show that the majority of Napster users will abuse the product to violate copyright laws, the law will rule Napster as illegal.
I, for one, would like a society where the law doesn't have to step in like this to maintain order. People, as of now, are unable to create and maintain such a society, and the current one is the best compromise developed thus far.
Ahem. Please do research before making claims such as this. :) Most of Linux's thread libraries use userland threads, not kernel-supported ones. However, the Linux kernel has kernel suppor for threads with the clone() system call and the Linuxthreads package takes advantage of this to provide kernel-supported threads. Userland threads can't be split across CPUs, but kernel-supported threads can. btw, threads still DO context-switch but at a lower cost of CPU cycles. Basic OS stuff, people!
Religion is a way to live your life and a way to believe in something larger than ourselves. Attacks on "the institutions" and organized religion are getting out of control. The Net is no more a "threat" to organized religion than was the printing press. If anything, it allows religions to get their message out to more people because they are no longer restricted to personal contact to broadcast their messages.
I have some friends who are as much a hacker as myself who have strong personal faiths. That the recent movements towards a personal faith that each person decides individually is the best way to go. Organized religion provides a greater "community" of believers to interact, especially when they belive similarly.
I can't say it better than Joshua:
Cheers!
--Jason