I think Shakrai's point was that winamp hasn't been properly released on linux, and so we need others to create clones, etc. Hence we do need the wheel to be reinvented.
You could also volunteer to write C&D letters for free. I'm sure some on/. might appreciate that. Hey, maybe some copyright holders will transfer the copyright of a few lines to you so you can send a C&D letter on your own behalf;)
Ermmm a 1,000 name petition (for example) being ignored is not any more powerful in court as evidence than SCO ignoring 1,000 C&D notices. Even though I'm not a legal type (am I an illegal type then?) this seems pretty obvious.
I think the lesson of history is that any form of extreme left/right government that doesn't value the people it represents is bad(TM). I think though that we should blame the extremism, not the -ism itself. Given a choice between people supporting communism and those supporting Macarthyism (sp?) I'd choose the former.
As to the number of deaths that different systems are responsible for, I'm sure the finer details aren't as easy to read. Indeed many wars during the past 60 years or so that were based on fighting communism (Korean/Vietnam/others?) were, as we well know, puppet fights between the West/East in the Cold War, and neither side really has the right to point the finger and arbitrarily blame the other. I think another poster in this thread mentioned a communist dictator and the CIA, that goes to show that extreme acts weren't only taken by 'the other side' (speaking as a democratic westerner).
I have to agree with you, I hold neo-darwinian views, and greatly enjoyed reading Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene in which I believe he goes into some depth about altruism (or maybe that was one of his other books).
Of course my earlier comments were pretty shallow on the issue of selfishness in relation purely to evolution, as I wanted to encompass individual selfishness where it was unrelated to genetic longevity. The ability of humanity to rationalise in many ways takes us beyond the simple evolutionary pressures to procreate, though the selfishness we're bred to possess manifests all too often in other ways, needing that third sports car or that fifth house.
While a level of selfishness is an evolutionary necessity, it could be that when it is coupled with our sentience that it actually starts to harm our prospects for evolution. It is a potentially valid claim that our ability to change our surroundings (so we live more comfortable lives - personal selfishness) negates evolutionary pressures. If the environment we live in doesn't change, then can we evolve? If we don't evolve, do we doom humanity to being unable to adapt to the big changes we can't prevent?
Hmm.. veering well off track now. Instead of communism dooming society, it's our own sentience;)
Opponents should neither be killed off nor allowed to die. That's falling into the trap that somehow communism couldn't work under a democratic system, in an impossibly ideal world. Opposition would fuel constant pressure to rethink and change the system, which should act in some way to prevent it stagnating. As long as the system/was/ fair, then the majority wouldn't be swayed much by opposition, as it would make most of them worse off. Of course, such opposition would inherantly mean that selfishness still existed, and hence the whole situation wouldn't be right for pure communism. Instead you'd end up with a socialist system whereby there were many positive aspects of communism, while at the same time offering the opportunity for individuals to better themselves within the system. I'm sure there are many examples of such, from my own euro-centric bias I'd suggest that many european countries match that mixed situation.
Communism doesn't go against evolution, per se. They work in totally different areas. It's possible for humanity to evolve into a nicer race that would support the development of true good (TM) communism. Chances are about the same that humanity will evolve beyond war, beyond hatred, beyond prejudice. Perhaps just as well, because it must surely only be war and selfishness that keeps human populations from exploding far far more than they currently are.
Making everyone in a country wear bunny ears wouldn't need a dictator.. but would be a lot easier. Though perhaps this would require an insane dictator.. hmm.. aren't they all?;)
I would happily be a benevolent dictator. I'm sure I'd do a good job, as I'm not inherantly evil, I don't get kicks murdering or torturing people, and I would like to see people live happily and fairly with each other. I would not however want to step down.. I'd enjoy being slightly better off, I'd fear any replacement ruinin all my 'good work'.
This is the biggest problem with the idea of dictatorial communism.
However communism doesn't need a dictator.. it would work in a democracy as long as the majority really wanted it. But overcoming the selfishness of every individual... I'm not going to hold my breath.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Shakrai's point was that winamp hasn't been properly released on linux, and so we need others to create clones, etc. Hence we do need the wheel to be reinvented.
In my experience, programmers HATE to be patronised! ;)
Can anyone on /. spell ridiculous? Sheesh... when spoken it doesn't even sound like it has an 'e' in it, yet I consistently see it spelt that way.
</rant>
So let's keep the guns, and get rid of the people.
When you attempt to correct someone's spelling, at least look it up first.
Hey, copyright that phrase, so if SCO does use it, you can sue them!
The fucking law? I'm aware the USA has many peculiar laws regarding sex, but in what way is SCO breaking any of them?
You could also volunteer to write C&D letters for free. I'm sure some on /. might appreciate that. Hey, maybe some copyright holders will transfer the copyright of a few lines to you so you can send a C&D letter on your own behalf ;)
Oh this is a very bad thing, that's why it's so good!!
> Honestly though, is a COD *really* going to do anything?
It might swim around a bit, and perhaps avoid any hooks or nets it spots.
Ermmm a 1,000 name petition (for example) being ignored is not any more powerful in court as evidence than SCO ignoring 1,000 C&D notices. Even though I'm not a legal type (am I an illegal type then?) this seems pretty obvious.
Haha!! I'm safe, my root password is Whisky, not Vodka, so nyeh!
Eeep.. I've been tracked down... gotta hide!!
;)
p.s. the CV of anyone in particular?
Awww damn.. er... I mean phew!!
Hmm.. reading between the lines... it seems that the parent poster is planning a bombing campaign against MS in the UK!!!!
That or they just have inside governmental info about OSS.
> I interviewed at Microsoft last week. One of my interviewers had both a Linux machine and a G5 in his office.
That's it, you're not going to be hired now.
Iraq under Saddam did have elections, and you could vote. Note that if the voting /could/ have changed anything, Saddam would have made it illegal ;)
I think the lesson of history is that any form of extreme left/right government that doesn't value the people it represents is bad(TM). I think though that we should blame the extremism, not the -ism itself. Given a choice between people supporting communism and those supporting Macarthyism (sp?) I'd choose the former.
As to the number of deaths that different systems are responsible for, I'm sure the finer details aren't as easy to read. Indeed many wars during the past 60 years or so that were based on fighting communism (Korean/Vietnam/others?) were, as we well know, puppet fights between the West/East in the Cold War, and neither side really has the right to point the finger and arbitrarily blame the other. I think another poster in this thread mentioned a communist dictator and the CIA, that goes to show that extreme acts weren't only taken by 'the other side' (speaking as a democratic westerner).
I have to agree with you, I hold neo-darwinian views, and greatly enjoyed reading Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene in which I believe he goes into some depth about altruism (or maybe that was one of his other books).
;)
Of course my earlier comments were pretty shallow on the issue of selfishness in relation purely to evolution, as I wanted to encompass individual selfishness where it was unrelated to genetic longevity. The ability of humanity to rationalise in many ways takes us beyond the simple evolutionary pressures to procreate, though the selfishness we're bred to possess manifests all too often in other ways, needing that third sports car or that fifth house.
While a level of selfishness is an evolutionary necessity, it could be that when it is coupled with our sentience that it actually starts to harm our prospects for evolution. It is a potentially valid claim that our ability to change our surroundings (so we live more comfortable lives - personal selfishness) negates evolutionary pressures. If the environment we live in doesn't change, then can we evolve? If we don't evolve, do we doom humanity to being unable to adapt to the big changes we can't prevent?
Hmm.. veering well off track now. Instead of communism dooming society, it's our own sentience
I have so little interest, I didn't even read your reply.
I have so little interest in Longhorn, that I won't even post a comment to an article about it. Whoops!
Opponents should neither be killed off nor allowed to die. That's falling into the trap that somehow communism couldn't work under a democratic system, in an impossibly ideal world. Opposition would fuel constant pressure to rethink and change the system, which should act in some way to prevent it stagnating. As long as the system /was/ fair, then the majority wouldn't be swayed much by opposition, as it would make most of them worse off. Of course, such opposition would inherantly mean that selfishness still existed, and hence the whole situation wouldn't be right for pure communism. Instead you'd end up with a socialist system whereby there were many positive aspects of communism, while at the same time offering the opportunity for individuals to better themselves within the system. I'm sure there are many examples of such, from my own euro-centric bias I'd suggest that many european countries match that mixed situation.
Communism doesn't go against evolution, per se. They work in totally different areas. It's possible for humanity to evolve into a nicer race that would support the development of true good (TM) communism. Chances are about the same that humanity will evolve beyond war, beyond hatred, beyond prejudice. Perhaps just as well, because it must surely only be war and selfishness that keeps human populations from exploding far far more than they currently are.
True, not necessary... but a lot easier.
;)
Making everyone in a country wear bunny ears wouldn't need a dictator.. but would be a lot easier. Though perhaps this would require an insane dictator.. hmm.. aren't they all?
I would happily be a benevolent dictator. I'm sure I'd do a good job, as I'm not inherantly evil, I don't get kicks murdering or torturing people, and I would like to see people live happily and fairly with each other. I would not however want to step down.. I'd enjoy being slightly better off, I'd fear any replacement ruinin all my 'good work'.
This is the biggest problem with the idea of dictatorial communism.
However communism doesn't need a dictator.. it would work in a democracy as long as the majority really wanted it. But overcoming the selfishness of every individual... I'm not going to hold my breath.