Not everyone who saw the lecture agreed with the contents. A counterpoint can be found here.
I didn't write that counterpoint, but there's one thing the author and I agree on: Richard Stallman is a lot more crazy in person. One guy in the audience asked how he was supposed to pay for his university education by releasing free software. Stallman didn't really give him an answer, he just told the student that he didn't have to go to school, and he had no right to release closed source software in an attempt to earn money. Stallman has compared closed source software to "a crime against humanity", yes?
I talked to Stallman after the lecture. I asked him how he paid the mortgage after leaving MIT in 1984. He said that that he's never had a mortgage and "he lives cheaply". I later heard that he basically squatted on the MIT campus.
See, here's the problem with Stallman's philosophies: they're highly incompatible with the status quo, and there's no clear path for change. If you want people to do $Y instead of $X, $Y has to be relatively pin-compatible with $X. Telling people to write free software is well and good, but your paradigm isn't going to have much success if it also requires programmers to buy a house, get married, and otherwise have a normal life.
On a related note, I also asked Stallman what he thought of the wedding photography industry. For those of you who don't know, typical wedding photographers cost over a thousand dollars, show up at your wedding to take pictures, and then make you pay through the nose for prints. They don't even give you the copyright, if you want more prints you have to go back to the photographer! One must shop around to find a photographer who'll actually give you the digital originals. Anyway, I asked Stallman if he thought this was analogous to what was happening in the software world, and he said no. He thought closed source software was a greater imposition on freedom than holding wedding memories hostage.
Why is it people can't stop making fun of Ted Stevens? Sure, he made a poorly worded analogy. Big deal - the internet had been compared to plumbing before, would you like to rag on these guys too?
What I find most disgusting though is even though this one event seems ingrained in geek memory, these same geeks conveniently forget when Ted Stevens came out on our side. Personally, I think Americans would be better off if you had more politicians like him in office.
Just because one has the right to do something does not mean it should be done. For instance, I've read your responses to some of the other comments in this thread:
You could, you know, not bring a bag with you. Or stop being a whiny ass. It takes three seconds to open a bag to show there is no camcorder in there. If you want to bitch about anything try the low selection of quality films, or the $15 small popcorn.
I have the right to call you an asshole. Should I?
On another note, I carry a camera with me where ever I go. It's a still camera, but I can see movie theatre people making a stink about it. Do you think that, when I get dressed in the morning, I'm going to say to myself, "Oh! I might go to a movie tonight! I'm going to leave the camera at home." Do you think I'm going to let a pimply faced teenager confiscate a several-hundred dollar piece of personal electronics just so I can watch a damn movie? They have the right to try it, but they are not entitled to my patronage.
(I also usually have a bag with me. If happen to go to the movies, should I just leave it outside? You yourself said you usually have a bag, yet you're telling others they could just "not" bring a bag with them. Isn't that a tad hypocritical?)
Would you still go to a movie theatre that searched your bags, and confiscated your snack food? It's private property, they have the right to take away your bottle of coke, offering only to sell you the exact same beverage for three times what you paid for the original.
They could be assholes, but they shouldn't be assholes. Being an asshole is terrible for business.
(And now, for your pleasure, some filler text to get by the lameness filter. Apparently Slashdot doesn't like it when you post a response mostly in caps.)
"The CBC is reporting that First Nations in Manitoba want compensation for every cell phone signal that passes through their land because it violates their airspace.
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
Solution: build giant Faraday cages around their land. No cellphone signal inside, no problem.
FYI... No one coule EVER tell from someone's spelling that they aren't a native english speaker! We 'natural(?)' Americans can be pretty bad spellers from the get-go, so don't ever think that you'r on-line communications give anything away.
Sir, I hope your post is actually brilliantly disguised satire.
He never claimed not to be a native English speaker, he just claimed not to be American.
Here's a clue: U.S.A. is the only nation in which English is a national language, true or false?
I'll give you another clue: just how do you spell "favourite" down there in America, anyway?
He is a busy genius - I stumbled across his site when I was told someone mapped the tunnel network below the University of Waterloo. And he did.
IMHO, the coolest thing he ever built was converting a scanner into a digital camera. People, if you have a few free minutes, check his site out. Lots of cool stuff there!
There's a reason why Star Trek didn't have our economic system - in a world where almost anything can be replicated, goods based economies become impotent.
As 3D printing becomes more common, there's going to be a lot of fighting between entrenched manufacturers and "pirates" (just as there is now fighting between entrenched media and "pirates") but in the end, the technology always wins out.
Perhaps this will pave the way to a new economic system...
The article does - kind of. Unfortuately, it doesn't go far past vibrating pads and tongue-arrays. (And yes, the world-flipping goggles.) However, those technologies haven't been around too long. AFAIK, people weren't doing those kinds of experiments before the sixties.
I suppose the difference between the stuff the article talks about and your "radio" example is in the personalization - there's a difference between a radio in the room and a radio only you can hear.
Slashdot Mirror
Please kindly ignore the incorrect link. The correct one is here. (Damn tabs)
Not everyone who saw the lecture agreed with the contents. A counterpoint can be found here.
I didn't write that counterpoint, but there's one thing the author and I agree on: Richard Stallman is a lot more crazy in person. One guy in the audience asked how he was supposed to pay for his university education by releasing free software. Stallman didn't really give him an answer, he just told the student that he didn't have to go to school, and he had no right to release closed source software in an attempt to earn money. Stallman has compared closed source software to "a crime against humanity", yes?
I talked to Stallman after the lecture. I asked him how he paid the mortgage after leaving MIT in 1984. He said that that he's never had a mortgage and "he lives cheaply". I later heard that he basically squatted on the MIT campus.
See, here's the problem with Stallman's philosophies: they're highly incompatible with the status quo, and there's no clear path for change. If you want people to do $Y instead of $X, $Y has to be relatively pin-compatible with $X. Telling people to write free software is well and good, but your paradigm isn't going to have much success if it also requires programmers to buy a house, get married, and otherwise have a normal life.
On a related note, I also asked Stallman what he thought of the wedding photography industry. For those of you who don't know, typical wedding photographers cost over a thousand dollars, show up at your wedding to take pictures, and then make you pay through the nose for prints. They don't even give you the copyright, if you want more prints you have to go back to the photographer! One must shop around to find a photographer who'll actually give you the digital originals. Anyway, I asked Stallman if he thought this was analogous to what was happening in the software world, and he said no. He thought closed source software was a greater imposition on freedom than holding wedding memories hostage.
The man is too close to his particular pet cause.
It's a good thing that humanity is a virus, not a weed.
Unless you too have had an electrician check your house, the comparison is not valid.
Why is it people can't stop making fun of Ted Stevens? Sure, he made a poorly worded analogy. Big deal - the internet had been compared to plumbing before, would you like to rag on these guys too?
What I find most disgusting though is even though this one event seems ingrained in geek memory, these same geeks conveniently forget when Ted Stevens came out on our side. Personally, I think Americans would be better off if you had more politicians like him in office.
Embrace, Extend, Exterminate. Christianity is the Microsoft of religions!
You used "at the end of the day" twice in two paragraphs.
On the contrary, I think you put your finger on it very well.
I love minority governments. Nothing gets done, and thus nothing gets fucked up!
All praise Canada's multi-party system!
On another note, I carry a camera with me where ever I go. It's a still camera, but I can see movie theatre people making a stink about it. Do you think that, when I get dressed in the morning, I'm going to say to myself, "Oh! I might go to a movie tonight! I'm going to leave the camera at home." Do you think I'm going to let a pimply faced teenager confiscate a several-hundred dollar piece of personal electronics just so I can watch a damn movie? They have the right to try it, but they are not entitled to my patronage.
(I also usually have a bag with me. If happen to go to the movies, should I just leave it outside? You yourself said you usually have a bag, yet you're telling others they could just "not" bring a bag with them. Isn't that a tad hypocritical?)
Would you still go to a movie theatre that searched your bags, and confiscated your snack food? It's private property, they have the right to take away your bottle of coke, offering only to sell you the exact same beverage for three times what you paid for the original.
They could be assholes, but they shouldn't be assholes. Being an asshole is terrible for business.
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVEL....nevermind.
(And now, for your pleasure, some filler text to get by the lameness filter. Apparently Slashdot doesn't like it when you post a response mostly in caps.)
Solution: build giant Faraday cages around their land. No cellphone signal inside, no problem.
He never claimed not to be a native English speaker, he just claimed not to be American.
Here's a clue: U.S.A. is the only nation in which English is a national language, true or false?
I'll give you another clue: just how do you spell "favourite" down there in America, anyway?
I'm tired of the Valenti clones spouting the "infinity minus one day" line. Infinity minus one is still infinity.
This still isn't the truth. The truth is JFK was killed by bears from space.
It's for the best. That number on the internet is to the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
Posting the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is like being left at home with the Boston Strangler.
5B
Remember kids, when Grandpa goes senile, it's not a good idea to let him drive...or practice law.
He is a busy genius - I stumbled across his site when I was told someone mapped the tunnel network below the University of Waterloo. And he did.
IMHO, the coolest thing he ever built was converting a scanner into a digital camera. People, if you have a few free minutes, check his site out. Lots of cool stuff there!
There's a reason why Star Trek didn't have our economic system - in a world where almost anything can be replicated, goods based economies become impotent.
As 3D printing becomes more common, there's going to be a lot of fighting between entrenched manufacturers and "pirates" (just as there is now fighting between entrenched media and "pirates") but in the end, the technology always wins out.
Perhaps this will pave the way to a new economic system...
The article does - kind of. Unfortuately, it doesn't go far past vibrating pads and tongue-arrays. (And yes, the world-flipping goggles.) However, those technologies haven't been around too long. AFAIK, people weren't doing those kinds of experiments before the sixties.
I suppose the difference between the stuff the article talks about and your "radio" example is in the personalization - there's a difference between a radio in the room and a radio only you can hear.
Have you seen the physics department here at Waterloo? It's nearly as hurting for women as CS is.
(In fact, in my first year there were more women in Software Engineering than Physics)