Liberal Arts education is definitely not a waste of time. I do wish I had more formal tech training in college (I'm a self-study geek too), but I would sooner have bamboo shoots stuck under my nails than give up my liberal arts degree for a technical one.
Why is COBOL important? Because there are still billions of lines of COBOL programs in use in the real world. Granted, it's not as glitzy as C++ or Java, but the world runs on COBOL. Those mainframes still run Big Business.
As to what you study in college: University is not just about getting a job when you finish. It's about being educated. That's why you study "irrelevant" things like English and history. English is important for the rest of your life in whatever you do: you need to be able to communicate well. History is equally important, if not moreso: it provides perspective, and if you're careful you might actually learn a lesson or two about things to avoid or pursue in your own life.
If you really think that liberal education is useless, then you still need a liberal education. Be patient, and try to learn the material -- don't just study for the tests. You'll be glad you did someday.
I find it laughable that you seem to think these quotes could somehow be legitimized if we understood their "context" better. Do you work for Algore's campaign?
Slander involves deliberate misrepresentations of the truth about someone. It is an attempt to make a person look bad by telling lies about them. Where exactly are the lies in a series of direct quotations from Algore's own book? Where exactly are the lies in the post's author putting his spin on those quotes?
I would truly be interested to see anyone attempt to legitimize Algore's appalling remarks about population control. "Quality of life" indeed!! As if he has a right to dictate it! As if he is in a position to declare whether we might have "extra" people! What arrogance!
Here's a tip for Algore: the technology you condemn now is responsible for our long lives now. It's responsible for the eradication of smallpox (note to Algore: smallpox virus is a living organism. Should we destroy what remains of it, or release it into the wild again? A *consistent* eco-whacko like yourself ought to oppose the extinction of a species, right? How about smallpox, Algore? And is it fair -- is it "just" -- is it "decent" -- to cage smallpox virus in test tubes? Shouldn't a *consistent* eco-whacko like yourself favor the return of smallpox to its natural environment -- humans? What about quality of life for smallpox, Al? After all, it's another species, just like us). Technology's responsible for the quality of life we now enjoy. Take it away -- yes, Algore, right back to sticks (but no fire -- that's technology, and besides it pollutes) and no weapons (technology) or plows for planting or...or...or... Take away technology, and we're back to life expectancies in the 20s or 30s. Sounds like fun to me!
There is nothing wrong with representation. And the fact that people have representatives doesn't necessarily mean that literally everyone agrees with what their representatives say.
You have lots of representatives, unless you live in a cave: Congressmen, Senators, a Rapis^H^H^H^H^HPresident, a mayor.... If you're in school you have still others representing you. If you have a job, you are represented. Your parents represent(ed) you.
You aren't going to escape from representation, so you may as well accept it. It's part of living as part of a society. If you don't like what your representatives are saying, then you should fire up your mail client and let them know.
As to your particular claim that unanimity doesn't exist among open source folk: Duh. ESR, Larry Wall and the others are, I think, aware of the diversity of opinion within the community. This doesn't obviate the need for representation in certain circumstances.
By the way, there is absolutely nothing that prevents you from issuing your *own* "Open Letter" to Microsoft if you don't like this one. So if you don't like it - why not do something? You can even say that you speak only for yourself, if you are so afraid of representing others.
Of course, this is only my experience and observations...
I code about 8-10 hours a day, and I never have problems with my wrists. The one time I did begin to develop some soreness was during a two or three-week span where I was playing a lot of xpat2. All the mouse-clicking was killing my wrist. I dropped the game and my wrist healed up.
By way of observation: the only person in this office who has a case of carpal tunnel syndrome sits lower than her keyboard and rests her hands on one of those keyboard-wrist pads. Ridiculous! When you're typing you shouldn't be resting your hands on the desk, and you shouldn't be sitting in a hole in the ground. All you end up doing in both cases is torquing your wrists.
(Okay, I might be wrong about the pad; I've been trying to analyze what I do when I type, and I can't be sure about that. But sitting in a hole is wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm convinced that better practices with one's typing posture would alleviate this problem.)
You're missing the point. If I value my money more than your product, I won't make the exchange. No sale. Period. The "break-even" point is where both the buyer and seller agree to a price.
The "zero-sum" game says that if I give you a dollar for a comic book, I'm out a dollar (-1) and you're up a dollar (+1): (-1) + (+1) = 0. Left out of the whole equation is the value of the comic book we exchanged. I no longer have that dollar, but I have something else that I wanted more than that dollar. In other words, I valued the comic book more than the cash I gave you.
In the same way, you want my money more than you want that comic book: you value that dollar more than that particular issue of Detective Comics.
It is for this reason that it is impossible to overcharge for goods. People will never (short of being very very foolish) attempt to get a product that they value less than their money. Shysters may attempt to deceive people into thinking that their products are more valuable than the money they want, but that doesn't change the fact that the buyer and seller must both believe they are coming out ahead, or the sale doesn't take place.
I should add here that this is why price controls never work. Why? Because they force sellers to sell at prices below what they're willing to accept. This leads to shortages, because producers of goods become unwilling to produce at the legislated price levels.
On the other hand, if we have price floors, then there will be surpluses of goods. Why? Because consumers become unwilling to part with their money at the legislated prices. They don't think the milk or software or whatever is worth the minimum price that government has mandated, so it sits on the shelves.
Capitalism, far from being intrinsically immoral somehow as communists and some others suggest, is actually therefore very moral: both sides in a transaction believe they are coming out ahead. Everybody wins.
With respect to software, Open Source stuff is slowly but surely going to open people's eyes to the fact that they may have been valuing commercial software too highly. This will lead them to reduce the amount of money they will be willing to pay for those products. This is what will put Microsoft's back to the wall.
You don't understand the nature of an economic transaction. I have money, you have goods. In order for a transaction to occur, I have to value your goods more than the amount of money you want in exchange for them. The same is true in reverse: you have to value my money more than the goods you are offering for sale.
If this doesn't happen, there's no sale.
This is still the case on any scale. The only time this appears to be false is when governments intervene in the markets, thereby distorting prices and making it more difficult for buyers and sellers to arrive at mutually acceptable prices. But even then you have to keep in mind that regulations of various sorts -- and complying with them (or not doing so) -- constitute additional costs in any transaction.
Even so, it is just not true that free markets are ever zero-sum. It won't happen. It can't.
I would dispute that there is "always" hypocrisy in government. I'm not suggesting that any government would or could consist of some saintly class of men who are untouched by human frailties, but there's a difference between being flawed, doing bad things, and being a hypocrite. We aren't required to settle for hypocrisy on this scale in our leaders. The fact that we do is a greater condemnation of us than of them.
Morality in politics usually is soiled by appeals to pragmatism. In that you are correct. The question here is whether that is a good thing. How important to us are ethical positions which we'll scrap for "pragmatic" reasons? I submit they aren't very important to us at all. And that again demonstrates how feeble appeals to morality are in the present conflict in Serbia. Let's be honest, Mr. President: the reason we are bombing Serbia into the Stone Age is not because "it's the right thing to do" but because we can. And we don't do it to China because we can't.
This is not an ethical position. It's laughably pathetic. It's inexcusable.
No one ever says "the right thing to do would be to bomb China, but we just can't do it because they're too dangerous." That would betray how frail our public morals really are. The truth is something different. It's not politically expedient to bomb China, but it obviously is plenty okay to bomb Serbia.
Again, I'm not trying to condone the killing of the Albanians by their own government. But I'm certainly not going to condone my own country's power-drunk assaults on the Balkans either -- until someone presents a valid ethical or legal argument for it. I haven't seen one, and I don't expect to see one either.
This is a legitimate question. I don't pretend to have a pat answer to it.
There are a couple reasons why I challenge the legitimacy of what we are doing. I suppose a valid argument for it might exist, but that's not what we are seeing so far.
First, we have no legal standing for doing what we are doing. The United States is (allegedly; it may not be this anymore) a country governed by the rule of law. In other words, our government must act in accordance with laws -- not just the whims of the people as evidenced in polls or the whims of presidents or anyone else. So where is the legal basis for our action in Serbia?
We have no formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution. We have no approval by the United Nations. Serbia/Yugoslavia are not members of NATO, nor did they attack NATO members. If there is a legal basis for this action, I am at a loss to identify it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clinton hasn't offered one, either. So I really think I am safe in saying that there is no legal basis for this action, and that is a real problem in a country that is (supposedly) governed by the principle of the rule of law.
The best Clinton had to offer was a vague and undefined appeal to our "national interests." Really? What interests are those, pray tell? How is it in our national interest to stick our noses into this? How will the U.S. suffer by keeping out of it?
Secondly, I have a hard time believing the "moral" claims made by our "fearless leader" as well. Our national "morals" are marvelously convenient: our leaders are aghast (and rightly so) at the killing of the Kosovars, yet they wink at the killing done by the Chinese. Worse, they grant Most Favored Nation trading status to the Chinese. This is grotesque hypocrisy, and it betrays the truth: morality has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are doing in Serbia. The only possible "morality" I can see is that of the schoolyard thug who picks only on the kids that are smaller than he is: in other words, this is no "morality" at all.
I am not claiming that I can necessarily offer a more satisfying response to what is happening in the Balkans. But the justifications my "leaders" are offering are pathetic, and for that reason I can't support what we are doing.
Now if anyone wants to tell me that it's better than doing nothing -- fine. So is bombing China for doing the same thing to its people. But we do even WORSE to the Chinese victims, because we look the other way. By bombing Serbia and not Beijing, we effectively deny that moral outrages are occurring in China literally every day. And to say "Well, we do what we can" is a pathetic excuse too. This is the ethics of the bully again, who won't pick on someone his own size. Let's see how seriously our "leaders" take their newfound morality: let's see them bomb Beijing. Until they do, this Serbia thing is a load of hypocritical trash.
And it isn't making things any better, either -- as the news reports show.
Even if you don't use MS products at all you can still be the victim of an inbox full of email with lovely infected Word docs. Sure, you don't get harmed by the virus directly, but you still have to deal with the effects.
This is exactly the problem with what is going on in Serbia. The United States government consists of moralizing hypocrites when they attempt to justify this military action as "humanitarian." We've heard this before, back in the Persian Gulf (at least then there was actually an invasion by Iraq of another country, but let's face it: that war was about oil, not Kuwaiti independence).
Until and unless our Fearless Leaders decide to play actual hardball with the Chinese, all this talk about "preventing genocide" is just that: talk. There is nothing moral whatsoever about what the U.S. is doing there. We circumvented the U.S. Constitution, which requires a declaration of war. We ignored the U.N. charter. Unless the NATO charter has been revised, we also ignored the fact that NATO is a defensive organization.
This is nothing more than Bill's next Excellent Adventure. It disgusts me, and I am ashamed to be an American because of it.
Just a clarification. As far as I'm concerned, it would be irrational to call any user of Free Software a "parasite". The author of the software gave it away (under whatever conditions -- GPL, BSD, yadda yadda). Thus it is free for anyone to use, however they wish to use it. No one can be a parasite under those terms, unless perhaps they deliberately violate the GPL by taking others' code proprietary.
Economically speaking, it is inevitable that free software will lure users who care about nothing but its price. That's the way supply and demand work: the lower the price of a thing (particularly in relation to other things of the same sort), the greater the demand for it. These people will care not a fig for RMS' principles. They will care about the fact that open source software is cheap and of very high quality even in comparison to its commercial counterparts. Because they won't understand the GPL (even if they've read it), piracy will probably run rampant -- as in cases where GPL'ed software gets taken proprietary without so much as a thank you to the authors. I'd be stunned, frankly, if this hasn't already happened.
This is certainly one possible response to the FSF jihad, and I hope that they take note of it.
No one is saying that RMS or anyone else can't call the OS whatever they wish. But when RMS can't even allow a reporter to ask questions about Linux without repeatedly interrupting him to correct his usage, other people of a less...committed mindset than he will be turned off. No one, I submit, becomes impressed by Free Software when Free Software advocates browbeat them over such petty little things. Indeed, I suspect the exact opposite is what happens. Your message appears to indicate that I am correct.
The only remaining question is: how many other coders are joining you because of this? FSF, take note of what RMS' brand of advocacy has the potential to do: alienate developers who might otherwise have used the GPL.
2) I agree with the article: RMS' personal life is completely irrelevant here...unless of course you think it has some bearing -- in which case you really ought to say why.
While I'm not disputing that the things you list were among Watterson's reasons, I don't think they entirely explain why I can't buy a legal Hobbes for my boy (to my knowledge -- correct me if I'm wrong -- there are no licensed C & H products whatsoever other than the books). If it were simply a matter of these products affecting the strip while it ran, then we could expect them to be available now, when there are no such pressures. We do not see them, and I suspect that they would still be enormously marketable (I surely would buy a Hobbes for my son!).
I think the answer is to be found in something Watterson wrote for one of his books -- something I found absurdly pretentious. Basically (if I remember correctly), he didn't want to "cheapen" his art by commercializing it.
Yes, I think that's pretentious. Without question Calvin & Hobbes was well done -- probably one of the best ever -- but let's not go pretending that it's anything other than what it is: a comic strip. As far as I'm concerned, Scott Adams is a genius for making as much money off Dilbert as he can, while he can. Not every comic can be a Blondie or Peanuts, which seem to be eternal money makers. Eventually they get cancelled. Why not make as much off it as you can? Sure, it's commercial, but so what? Once you're financially independent (thanks to sound business decisions) you can really devote your time and energy to making your "art" as good as it can possibly be, if you wish.
The whole argument as Watterson presented it seemed ridiculous -- like society owed him something. Sigh. But the man could draw, and I think it was the funniest strip I've ever seen.
While I would be among the first to agree that excellence should be recognized and (where possible) rewarded, let's not be too hasty here.
This is a 500 *combined* score on a dumbed down SAT. This test is not rocket science. If (as the College Board claims) the SAT is a fair barometer of future collegiate performance (note that I distinguish this from actually obtaining an education in college), this girl is doomed (unless of course she had an off day and can improve her showing on a retest).
Finally, in any area of life besides education -- let's say the job world for the sake of argument -- this sort of performance would be worthy of nothing but termination.
"But I did my work better than anyone on my shift!"
"Yes, and your shift was the worst in the company, and your personal performance was below the worst of any other shift's worst performer. Get out of here."
It may be painful, and it certainly is unfortunate for those kids whose lousy performance may not even be entirely their fault, but I don't think we ought to be heaping too much praise on the best in a class consisting of educational disaster. Excellence matters.
There is something inherently wrong with a class in which all the students fail.
What if they all failed because they were fools? Should the prof dumb down the course or inflate the grades just so a bunch of idiots can pass, regardless of whether they learned anything? This defeats the purpose of education.
Things like this don't happen in a vacuum. How many other students have ever taken the class? How did they do? Historically have others taking the class suffered these problems? If not, then the problem is more than likely stupidity or sheer laziness. Even if others *have* found it difficult it could still be due to their own denseness/sloth, and other times it's because the material is just hard.
I have no pity on these dolts. If they couldn't figure out that they were in over their heads early on, they got what they deserved (oh, and yes -- I have failed classes before, too. I got what I deserved).
This is just another symptom of the collapse of the educational system in the United States, which the educational establishment is frantically trying to conceal through dumbing down courses and inflating grades. The SAT is a useless as an historical benchmark anymore because a) it is much easier than it ever used to be, and b) on top of this students are now allowed to use calculators on the dumb thing! Sheesh! The stupid test is MULTIPLE CHOICE, for pete's sake!!! Why would you need a CALCULATOR???
Answer: either you were one of the rare few who literally had no hope on the test in the first place, or (far more likely) you have been failed by those "educators" who (in spite of teaching for the test) were incapable of helping you learn anything. I realize that today's SAT-takers aren't responsible for the fact they can now use calculators, but the fact that you *can* do so shows how pathetic the SAT has become.
Education here in the U.S. sucks rocks. Period. These dolts in Houston are proof positive. They somehow think SMU "owes" them something because they were unable to pass this course.
WRONG
(Note that I call them dolts because they have sued over this; I don't know if they were stupid or lazy or even just foolishly in over their heads, but they do betray a certain idiocy in thinking that a lawsuit is going to make things right).
Setting aside for the moment the queston of whether BillBorg is that farsighted (which, given the "Internet Fad" remarks, I doubt), it's obvious based only upon what you've already seen if you read the ZD review.
Do you think that the reviewer could have ignored a bombshell like that in his review? Not a chance. It's a joke.
If you are really an epistemological nihilist, then you how can you say anything about anything? I agree with you that this is the only logical conclusion one can reach as a materialist, but your response to this ought to be to reject materialism. It is a philosophy that is utterly unlivable if practiced consistently. It leads only to despair.
I hope that since you have the honesty to admit that these are the logical conclusions of materialism, you will likewise have the wisdom to reject it and turn to Christ.
But if not, then I truly do pity you, because to willingly choose to cling to a philosophy that leads nowhere save to despair is really sad.
It seems disingenuous of you to also claim what a god-given right to life would be.
Given that I haven't tried to assert my view of that up to now, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm "relieved" in a perverse way that you are consistent enough to admit that ethical nihilism is the only option for the materialist. You realize that this applies to your epistemology too, don't you?
The fact that I am not God has nothing whatever to do with whether I can know if there is a God-given right to life. I'm not you, either; and while I certainly don't know much about you I do know that whoever wrote the note to which I'm replying claims in it to be an ethical nihilist. My point: God is able to communicate, just as you have done. And he has done so in the Bible. And consequently anything we say about a God-given right to life must be based upon that.
An omnipotent god isn't a complete foundation for morals and ethics either. What gives that god the right to declare what is right or wrong?
God's omnipotence is really completely unrelated to his authority to declare right and wrong. That authority derives from two or three things. In no particular order: ownership. He created and owns everything, including you and me, and he consequently has the right to declare how what he made and owns should act. Secondly, what he declares to be good is a reflection of his own character. We are made in his image, and consequently we ought to emulate that character. The fact that we don't do so demonstrates our own sinfulness and rebellion against his rightful authority. He made us to be like him in our character, but we rebel against that. And we are wrong, not him. And he is perfectly just in punishing us for it.
...and therefore the author has a right to expect compensation.
The time spent developing intellectual property does not have zero value. It can be spent in other ways; the fact that time may be spent in an activity that earns one money more than adequately demonstrates that there are costs involved in developing any idea, or in developing software, or in writing a book. The cost of writing the code is the value of the opportunities that you forgo in order to write the code. If I write free software in my spare time rather than taking a second job (or working even more on my main job), then the cost to me of the code I write is the money I lost by not working at a job.
There are costs associated with producing this stuff, folks. For anyone to say that, after bearing these costs to produce my code, I am now obligated to my code away, is denying me the right to be compensated for my time and effort.
It is a lie that there are no costs associated with producing Intellectual Property. And as a result, it is irresponsible and illegitimate for anyone to deny the producers of IP the right to be compensated for those costs in ways that they choose. The natural (and inevitable) consequence of doing so will be that ideas will dry up as people keep their stuff to themselves.
The right of Life. If God had given you this then everybody would be immortal, looking at nature I can't find any such right at all.. And thats from a country with death penalty...
It seems rather disingenuous for you, an admitted atheist, to try and define what a God-given right to life would look like. Even allowing that you are doing so "for the sake of argument", please share with us where on earth (or heaven) you found this notion that a God-given right to life == immortality. I know of no theologian (or even layman) who would say this.
As to the death penalty: why should you, an atheist, care? You have no moral foundation in your philosophy for declaring capital punishment to be wrong. You have no moral foundation (other than raw subjectivism) for making any ethical claims whatsoever.
Yes, I know you atheists get tired of hearing that, but the fact remains. In a materialist world view there is no basis for anything other than relativistic, subjective ethics, and consequently no atheist has any standing on the basis of his philosophy for condemning the moral choices of anyone -- not even someone trying to murder him.
I am continually amazed at some people's inability to distinguish between copyright and patent.
Copyright protects an expression of ideas. It doesn't protect the ideas themselves. Why do you think it's perfectly legitimate for you to quote from a book without paying the author? Why do you think it's perfectly all right for you to appropriate the ideas expressed in a book as your own? Because copyright doesn't protect ideas. It protects expression: written words.
On the other hand, it is illegitimate for you to appropriate someone else's words as your own. That's plagiarism. It's cheating, and if you try to sell them, it's a crime.
Copyright is what makes the GPL work: the author of code has a right to dictate the terms under which his code is used by others (if he releases it at all). If RMS is actually opposed to the legitimacy of copyright (and I don't know, but I surely hope he isn't) then he is one of the greatest hypocrites alive today. He would then be guilty of using something he abhors (and something he wants to eradicate) as a tool for advancing his cause. It would be like an anti-gun zealot using an Uzi to get rid of all those 2nd Amendment "fanatics".
Copyright is what makes the GPL different from public domain. Things in the public domain are free for anyone to use in any way they choose, including taking code proprietary.
Copyright is legitimate. Patents are different because they restrict the use of ideas -- and I fully agree that this is silly. But copyright is a different story. Someone somewhere invested their energy in producing a tangible thing: their book/code/whatever. It is theirs, and they have a right to do with their property what they wish.
Finally, let me say that the premise of the article is incorrect. Private property is legitimate because God owns everything, and he extends to us the right to own things as stewards -- as his representatives. There is nothing whatever immoral about the idea of private property; people may do bad things with their stuff, but that's a separate question.
I specifically dealt with the "ethical considerations":
Stallman denies that proprietary software can even *be* ethical. Unless I've totally misunderstood him (and I'd be happy to be corrected), his view is that to release proprietary software is intrinsically unethical.
Stallman's ethical consideration here is, as I said, hogwash. O'Reilly doesn't need to defend his views about free software; RMS needs to defend his ludicrous ideas about proprietary software being evil just because it's proprietary. And really, they're indefensible as far as I'm concerned -- they're completely disconnected from reality.
Slashdot Mirror
As to what you study in college: University is not just about getting a job when you finish. It's about being educated. That's why you study "irrelevant" things like English and history. English is important for the rest of your life in whatever you do: you need to be able to communicate well. History is equally important, if not moreso: it provides perspective, and if you're careful you might actually learn a lesson or two about things to avoid or pursue in your own life.
If you really think that liberal education is useless, then you still need a liberal education. Be patient, and try to learn the material -- don't just study for the tests. You'll be glad you did someday.
Slander involves deliberate misrepresentations of the truth about someone. It is an attempt to make a person look bad by telling lies about them. Where exactly are the lies in a series of direct quotations from Algore's own book? Where exactly are the lies in the post's author putting his spin on those quotes?
I would truly be interested to see anyone attempt to legitimize Algore's appalling remarks about population control. "Quality of life" indeed!! As if he has a right to dictate it! As if he is in a position to declare whether we might have "extra" people! What arrogance!
Here's a tip for Algore: the technology you condemn now is responsible for our long lives now. It's responsible for the eradication of smallpox (note to Algore: smallpox virus is a living organism. Should we destroy what remains of it, or release it into the wild again? A *consistent* eco-whacko like yourself ought to oppose the extinction of a species, right? How about smallpox, Algore? And is it fair -- is it "just" -- is it "decent" -- to cage smallpox virus in test tubes? Shouldn't a *consistent* eco-whacko like yourself favor the return of smallpox to its natural environment -- humans? What about quality of life for smallpox, Al? After all, it's another species, just like us). Technology's responsible for the quality of life we now enjoy. Take it away -- yes, Algore, right back to sticks (but no fire -- that's technology, and besides it pollutes) and no weapons (technology) or plows for planting or...or...or... Take away technology, and we're back to life expectancies in the 20s or 30s. Sounds like fun to me!
You have lots of representatives, unless you live in a cave: Congressmen, Senators, a Rapis^H^H^H^H^HPresident, a mayor.... If you're in school you have still others representing you. If you have a job, you are represented. Your parents represent(ed) you.
You aren't going to escape from representation, so you may as well accept it. It's part of living as part of a society. If you don't like what your representatives are saying, then you should fire up your mail client and let them know.
As to your particular claim that unanimity doesn't exist among open source folk: Duh. ESR, Larry Wall and the others are, I think, aware of the diversity of opinion within the community. This doesn't obviate the need for representation in certain circumstances.
By the way, there is absolutely nothing that prevents you from issuing your *own* "Open Letter" to Microsoft if you don't like this one. So if you don't like it - why not do something? You can even say that you speak only for yourself, if you are so afraid of representing others.
Or so they hope.
I code about 8-10 hours a day, and I never have problems with my wrists. The one time I did begin to develop some soreness was during a two or three-week span where I was playing a lot of xpat2. All the mouse-clicking was killing my wrist. I dropped the game and my wrist healed up.
By way of observation: the only person in this office who has a case of carpal tunnel syndrome sits lower than her keyboard and rests her hands on one of those keyboard-wrist pads. Ridiculous! When you're typing you shouldn't be resting your hands on the desk, and you shouldn't be sitting in a hole in the ground. All you end up doing in both cases is torquing your wrists.
(Okay, I might be wrong about the pad; I've been trying to analyze what I do when I type, and I can't be sure about that. But sitting in a hole is wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm convinced that better practices with one's typing posture would alleviate this problem.)
IMO,
The "zero-sum" game says that if I give you a dollar for a comic book, I'm out a dollar (-1) and you're up a dollar (+1): (-1) + (+1) = 0. Left out of the whole equation is the value of the comic book we exchanged. I no longer have that dollar, but I have something else that I wanted more than that dollar. In other words, I valued the comic book more than the cash I gave you.
In the same way, you want my money more than you want that comic book: you value that dollar more than that particular issue of Detective Comics.
It is for this reason that it is impossible to overcharge for goods. People will never (short of being very very foolish) attempt to get a product that they value less than their money. Shysters may attempt to deceive people into thinking that their products are more valuable than the money they want, but that doesn't change the fact that the buyer and seller must both believe they are coming out ahead, or the sale doesn't take place.
I should add here that this is why price controls never work. Why? Because they force sellers to sell at prices below what they're willing to accept. This leads to shortages, because producers of goods become unwilling to produce at the legislated price levels.
On the other hand, if we have price floors, then there will be surpluses of goods. Why? Because consumers become unwilling to part with their money at the legislated prices. They don't think the milk or software or whatever is worth the minimum price that government has mandated, so it sits on the shelves.
Capitalism, far from being intrinsically immoral somehow as communists and some others suggest, is actually therefore very moral: both sides in a transaction believe they are coming out ahead. Everybody wins.
With respect to software, Open Source stuff is slowly but surely going to open people's eyes to the fact that they may have been valuing commercial software too highly. This will lead them to reduce the amount of money they will be willing to pay for those products. This is what will put Microsoft's back to the wall.
If this doesn't happen, there's no sale.
This is still the case on any scale. The only time this appears to be false is when governments intervene in the markets, thereby distorting prices and making it more difficult for buyers and sellers to arrive at mutually acceptable prices. But even then you have to keep in mind that regulations of various sorts -- and complying with them (or not doing so) -- constitute additional costs in any transaction.
Even so, it is just not true that free markets are ever zero-sum. It won't happen. It can't.
Morality in politics usually is soiled by appeals to pragmatism. In that you are correct. The question here is whether that is a good thing. How important to us are ethical positions which we'll scrap for "pragmatic" reasons? I submit they aren't very important to us at all. And that again demonstrates how feeble appeals to morality are in the present conflict in Serbia. Let's be honest, Mr. President: the reason we are bombing Serbia into the Stone Age is not because "it's the right thing to do" but because we can. And we don't do it to China because we can't.
This is not an ethical position. It's laughably pathetic. It's inexcusable.
No one ever says "the right thing to do would be to bomb China, but we just can't do it because they're too dangerous." That would betray how frail our public morals really are. The truth is something different. It's not politically expedient to bomb China, but it obviously is plenty okay to bomb Serbia.
Again, I'm not trying to condone the killing of the Albanians by their own government. But I'm certainly not going to condone my own country's power-drunk assaults on the Balkans either -- until someone presents a valid ethical or legal argument for it. I haven't seen one, and I don't expect to see one either.
This is a legitimate question. I don't pretend to have a pat answer to it.
There are a couple reasons why I challenge the legitimacy of what we are doing. I suppose a valid argument for it might exist, but that's not what we are seeing so far.
First, we have no legal standing for doing what we are doing. The United States is (allegedly; it may not be this anymore) a country governed by the rule of law. In other words, our government must act in accordance with laws -- not just the whims of the people as evidenced in polls or the whims of presidents or anyone else. So where is the legal basis for our action in Serbia?
We have no formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution. We have no approval by the United Nations. Serbia/Yugoslavia are not members of NATO, nor did they attack NATO members. If there is a legal basis for this action, I am at a loss to identify it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clinton hasn't offered one, either. So I really think I am safe in saying that there is no legal basis for this action, and that is a real problem in a country that is (supposedly) governed by the principle of the rule of law.
The best Clinton had to offer was a vague and undefined appeal to our "national interests." Really? What interests are those, pray tell? How is it in our national interest to stick our noses into this? How will the U.S. suffer by keeping out of it?
Secondly, I have a hard time believing the "moral" claims made by our "fearless leader" as well. Our national "morals" are marvelously convenient: our leaders are aghast (and rightly so) at the killing of the Kosovars, yet they wink at the killing done by the Chinese. Worse, they grant Most Favored Nation trading status to the Chinese. This is grotesque hypocrisy, and it betrays the truth: morality has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are doing in Serbia. The only possible "morality" I can see is that of the schoolyard thug who picks only on the kids that are smaller than he is: in other words, this is no "morality" at all.
I am not claiming that I can necessarily offer a more satisfying response to what is happening in the Balkans. But the justifications my "leaders" are offering are pathetic, and for that reason I can't support what we are doing.
Now if anyone wants to tell me that it's better than doing nothing -- fine. So is bombing China for doing the same thing to its people. But we do even WORSE to the Chinese victims, because we look the other way. By bombing Serbia and not Beijing, we effectively deny that moral outrages are occurring in China literally every day. And to say "Well, we do what we can" is a pathetic excuse too. This is the ethics of the bully again, who won't pick on someone his own size. Let's see how seriously our "leaders" take their newfound morality: let's see them bomb Beijing. Until they do, this Serbia thing is a load of hypocritical trash.
And it isn't making things any better, either -- as the news reports show.
Even if you don't use MS products at all you can still be the victim of an inbox full of email with lovely infected Word docs. Sure, you don't get harmed by the virus directly, but you still have to deal with the effects.
Until and unless our Fearless Leaders decide to play actual hardball with the Chinese, all this talk about "preventing genocide" is just that: talk. There is nothing moral whatsoever about what the U.S. is doing there. We circumvented the U.S. Constitution, which requires a declaration of war. We ignored the U.N. charter. Unless the NATO charter has been revised, we also ignored the fact that NATO is a defensive organization.
This is nothing more than Bill's next Excellent Adventure. It disgusts me, and I am ashamed to be an American because of it.
Economically speaking, it is inevitable that free software will lure users who care about nothing but its price. That's the way supply and demand work: the lower the price of a thing (particularly in relation to other things of the same sort), the greater the demand for it. These people will care not a fig for RMS' principles. They will care about the fact that open source software is cheap and of very high quality even in comparison to its commercial counterparts. Because they won't understand the GPL (even if they've read it), piracy will probably run rampant -- as in cases where GPL'ed software gets taken proprietary without so much as a thank you to the authors. I'd be stunned, frankly, if this hasn't already happened.
No one is saying that RMS or anyone else can't call the OS whatever they wish. But when RMS can't even allow a reporter to ask questions about Linux without repeatedly interrupting him to correct his usage, other people of a less...committed mindset than he will be turned off. No one, I submit, becomes impressed by Free Software when Free Software advocates browbeat them over such petty little things. Indeed, I suspect the exact opposite is what happens. Your message appears to indicate that I am correct.
The only remaining question is: how many other coders are joining you because of this? FSF, take note of what RMS' brand of advocacy has the potential to do: alienate developers who might otherwise have used the GPL.
2) I agree with the article: RMS' personal life is completely irrelevant here...unless of course you think it has some bearing -- in which case you really ought to say why.
I think the answer is to be found in something Watterson wrote for one of his books -- something I found absurdly pretentious. Basically (if I remember correctly), he didn't want to "cheapen" his art by commercializing it.
Yes, I think that's pretentious. Without question Calvin & Hobbes was well done -- probably one of the best ever -- but let's not go pretending that it's anything other than what it is: a comic strip. As far as I'm concerned, Scott Adams is a genius for making as much money off Dilbert as he can, while he can. Not every comic can be a Blondie or Peanuts, which seem to be eternal money makers. Eventually they get cancelled. Why not make as much off it as you can? Sure, it's commercial, but so what? Once you're financially independent (thanks to sound business decisions) you can really devote your time and energy to making your "art" as good as it can possibly be, if you wish.
The whole argument as Watterson presented it seemed ridiculous -- like society owed him something. Sigh. But the man could draw, and I think it was the funniest strip I've ever seen.
This is a 500 *combined* score on a dumbed down SAT. This test is not rocket science. If (as the College Board claims) the SAT is a fair barometer of future collegiate performance (note that I distinguish this from actually obtaining an education in college), this girl is doomed (unless of course she had an off day and can improve her showing on a retest).
Finally, in any area of life besides education -- let's say the job world for the sake of argument -- this sort of performance would be worthy of nothing but termination.
"But I did my work better than anyone on my shift!"
"Yes, and your shift was the worst in the company, and your personal performance was below the worst of any other shift's worst performer. Get out of here."
It may be painful, and it certainly is unfortunate for those kids whose lousy performance may not even be entirely their fault, but I don't think we ought to be heaping too much praise on the best in a class consisting of educational disaster. Excellence matters.
What if they all failed because they were fools? Should the prof dumb down the course or inflate the grades just so a bunch of idiots can pass, regardless of whether they learned anything? This defeats the purpose of education.
Things like this don't happen in a vacuum. How many other students have ever taken the class? How did they do? Historically have others taking the class suffered these problems? If not, then the problem is more than likely stupidity or sheer laziness. Even if others *have* found it difficult it could still be due to their own denseness/sloth, and other times it's because the material is just hard.
I have no pity on these dolts. If they couldn't figure out that they were in over their heads early on, they got what they deserved (oh, and yes -- I have failed classes before, too. I got what I deserved).
This is just another symptom of the collapse of the educational system in the United States, which the educational establishment is frantically trying to conceal through dumbing down courses and inflating grades. The SAT is a useless as an historical benchmark anymore because a) it is much easier than it ever used to be, and b) on top of this students are now allowed to use calculators on the dumb thing! Sheesh! The stupid test is MULTIPLE CHOICE, for pete's sake!!! Why would you need a CALCULATOR???
Answer: either you were one of the rare few who literally had no hope on the test in the first place, or (far more likely) you have been failed by those "educators" who (in spite of teaching for the test) were incapable of helping you learn anything. I realize that today's SAT-takers aren't responsible for the fact they can now use calculators, but the fact that you *can* do so shows how pathetic the SAT has become.
Education here in the U.S. sucks rocks. Period. These dolts in Houston are proof positive. They somehow think SMU "owes" them something because they were unable to pass this course.
WRONG
(Note that I call them dolts because they have sued over this; I don't know if they were stupid or lazy or even just foolishly in over their heads, but they do betray a certain idiocy in thinking that a lawsuit is going to make things right).
Setting aside for the moment the queston of whether BillBorg is that farsighted (which, given the "Internet Fad" remarks, I doubt), it's obvious based only upon what you've already seen if you read the ZD review.
Do you think that the reviewer could have ignored a bombshell like that in his review? Not a chance. It's a joke.
I hope that since you have the honesty to admit that these are the logical conclusions of materialism, you will likewise have the wisdom to reject it and turn to Christ.
But if not, then I truly do pity you, because to willingly choose to cling to a philosophy that leads nowhere save to despair is really sad.
Given that I haven't tried to assert my view of that up to now, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm "relieved" in a perverse way that you are consistent enough to admit that ethical nihilism is the only option for the materialist. You realize that this applies to your epistemology too, don't you?
The fact that I am not God has nothing whatever to do with whether I can know if there is a God-given right to life. I'm not you, either; and while I certainly don't know much about you I do know that whoever wrote the note to which I'm replying claims in it to be an ethical nihilist. My point: God is able to communicate, just as you have done. And he has done so in the Bible. And consequently anything we say about a God-given right to life must be based upon that.
An omnipotent god isn't a complete foundation for morals and ethics either. What gives that god the right to declare what is right or wrong?
God's omnipotence is really completely unrelated to his authority to declare right and wrong. That authority derives from two or three things. In no particular order: ownership. He created and owns everything, including you and me, and he consequently has the right to declare how what he made and owns should act. Secondly, what he declares to be good is a reflection of his own character. We are made in his image, and consequently we ought to emulate that character. The fact that we don't do so demonstrates our own sinfulness and rebellion against his rightful authority. He made us to be like him in our character, but we rebel against that. And we are wrong, not him. And he is perfectly just in punishing us for it.
The time spent developing intellectual property does not have zero value. It can be spent in other ways; the fact that time may be spent in an activity that earns one money more than adequately demonstrates that there are costs involved in developing any idea, or in developing software, or in writing a book. The cost of writing the code is the value of the opportunities that you forgo in order to write the code. If I write free software in my spare time rather than taking a second job (or working even more on my main job), then the cost to me of the code I write is the money I lost by not working at a job.
There are costs associated with producing this stuff, folks. For anyone to say that, after bearing these costs to produce my code, I am now obligated to my code away, is denying me the right to be compensated for my time and effort.
It is a lie that there are no costs associated with producing Intellectual Property. And as a result, it is irresponsible and illegitimate for anyone to deny the producers of IP the right to be compensated for those costs in ways that they choose. The natural (and inevitable) consequence of doing so will be that ideas will dry up as people keep their stuff to themselves.
It seems rather disingenuous for you, an admitted atheist, to try and define what a God-given right to life would look like. Even allowing that you are doing so "for the sake of argument", please share with us where on earth (or heaven) you found this notion that a God-given right to life == immortality. I know of no theologian (or even layman) who would say this.
As to the death penalty: why should you, an atheist, care? You have no moral foundation in your philosophy for declaring capital punishment to be wrong. You have no moral foundation (other than raw subjectivism) for making any ethical claims whatsoever.
Yes, I know you atheists get tired of hearing that, but the fact remains. In a materialist world view there is no basis for anything other than relativistic, subjective ethics, and consequently no atheist has any standing on the basis of his philosophy for condemning the moral choices of anyone -- not even someone trying to murder him.
Copyright protects an expression of ideas. It doesn't protect the ideas themselves. Why do you think it's perfectly legitimate for you to quote from a book without paying the author? Why do you think it's perfectly all right for you to appropriate the ideas expressed in a book as your own? Because copyright doesn't protect ideas. It protects expression: written words.
On the other hand, it is illegitimate for you to appropriate someone else's words as your own. That's plagiarism. It's cheating, and if you try to sell them, it's a crime.
Copyright is what makes the GPL work: the author of code has a right to dictate the terms under which his code is used by others (if he releases it at all). If RMS is actually opposed to the legitimacy of copyright (and I don't know, but I surely hope he isn't) then he is one of the greatest hypocrites alive today. He would then be guilty of using something he abhors (and something he wants to eradicate) as a tool for advancing his cause. It would be like an anti-gun zealot using an Uzi to get rid of all those 2nd Amendment "fanatics".
Copyright is what makes the GPL different from public domain. Things in the public domain are free for anyone to use in any way they choose, including taking code proprietary.
Copyright is legitimate. Patents are different because they restrict the use of ideas -- and I fully agree that this is silly. But copyright is a different story. Someone somewhere invested their energy in producing a tangible thing: their book/code/whatever. It is theirs, and they have a right to do with their property what they wish.
Finally, let me say that the premise of the article is incorrect. Private property is legitimate because God owns everything, and he extends to us the right to own things as stewards -- as his representatives. There is nothing whatever immoral about the idea of private property; people may do bad things with their stuff, but that's a separate question.
Stallman denies that proprietary software can even *be* ethical. Unless I've totally misunderstood him (and I'd be happy to be corrected), his view is that to release proprietary software is intrinsically unethical.
Stallman's ethical consideration here is, as I said, hogwash. O'Reilly doesn't need to defend his views about free software; RMS needs to defend his ludicrous ideas about proprietary software being evil just because it's proprietary. And really, they're indefensible as far as I'm concerned -- they're completely disconnected from reality.