a theory advocating elimination of private property
a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
Emphasis mine. I've only snipped irrelevent definitions.
So, in short, there are a few aspects of Communism which the Free Software movement shares. But by and large, we're the diametric opposite of Communists: we hate central authority and control, we like owning our own computers and choosing which OSes we run, and we don't like serving other people. We serve ourselves. We code for ourselves.
In stark contrast:
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action
I think that describes us pretty well. It's the definition of Libertarian.
My karma just got knocked down two points in the past hour; this indicates to me that I am doing a bad job moderating. News to me - I thought I'd always been sublimely fair and impartial.
But - here's the important part - I couldn't tell which of my moderations had been declared bad. Shouldn't there be some indication, maybe privately in users.pl displayed only to the logged in user, of what he is accused of doing wrong?
Of course, this is only worth implementing if meta-moderation proves it's worth keeping. Which I think it isn't. But I'm kinda biased on this, having just lost two karmic points for an unknown reason and I suspect an unfair one... so I won't go any father into this.:)
I am not joking here: I have whipped up a fresh steaming batch of perl that pages me when my karma changes, with the new value and how much it's changed.
If you post below your default +1, the current moderators can pump it up again... giving you even more karma.:) Then again, if someone is consitently a good poster, why shouldnt they have that mind-numbingly awesome karma, eh?
Go look at Bruce Perens. And, as the script kiddies say, phear.
Rob, your explanation of meta-moderation was a bit odd. Maybe that's because you've been ceaselessly laboring all labor-day... What do you mean by "A [MetaModerator] gets 10 comments..." - ten chances to moderate another moderator?
And - if I post anonymously, and that post gets cranked up three or four points by the moderators, I don't get credit for those points, do I? In order to do so, the system would have to remember (albeit invisibly) who posted that comment, therefore making it "non-anonymous".
You've turned a nice profit selling books on free software. As I see it, this is much akin to hardware companies such as AMD, who sell their processors largely to Linux geeks, and RedHat, for obvious reasons. What other profitable markets or 'support industries' do you see emerging from the free software arena?
There are a number of things that disturb me about Star Trek, but most of all, I dislike the way the ships are run. If Commander Data can be created, why can't a starship be similarly intelligent and run itself?
I envision multiple-kilometer-long starships, some even maybe hundreds of klicks long, with millions of people on board; sort of like travelling cities. The entire inside of the ship would be something like a holodeck; it could be restructured at will in its entirety. There would only be backup crew on board. Everyone else would be a combination passenger/symbiont/pet.
Maybe the Federation doesn't have this tech yet. Why not skip the next series forward a few hundred years, to give us some new toys to play with, like Roddenberry did with ST:TNG over ST:TOS?
I've shamelessly stolen some of the ideas here from Iain M. Banks' Culture. He's got some of the best ship names ever. A few examples:
GSV Ethics Gradient
GSV Eschatologist
GCU Big Sexy Beast
GCU Ultimate Ship The Second
Finally: USS means United States Ship. How about FIV (Federation Interstellar Vehicle) instead?
I can't find myself making any reference to victimless crimes anywhere. What's more, I do like the laws of my country by and large, and I'd be better off living here than Antarctica, because I'd be freer here - ya can't have complete freedom without some laws.
And I didn't say laws shouldn't benefit people, either. I said they shouldn't benefit individuals or small groups alone. Read more carefully. Laws should be extensions of society's general ethics, and should be made to keep people out of each others' hair.
Parents of kids who make it their duty to get in neighbors' hair and commit jailable offenses have done society a disservice, because it's the parents' damned fault (usually) that the kid is being such an ass. If there are extenuating circumstances, those will be found pretty fast by the courts.
Forget how it benefits the family; if the family is raising kids who commit jailable offenses before they're sixteen or eighteen, then as far as I'm concerned they aren't fit to be free members of our society, let alone parents. Throw the parents in the slammer and transfer any remaining kids to a relative who can raise 'em properly.
You've got to stop thinking of law in terms of how it benefits people. Laws are made to keep people out of each others' hair... or, more accurately, they should be. They should not be passed for any one group's direct benefit.
The idea of a fine is a good one too, though. I'm sure it'd go over with the country as a whole a lot more smoothly... but it'd also have less kick-in-da-pants wake-up-call power.
All this would be judged by a jury in the courtroom; I can't imagine there being any national- or even state-level laws governing which actions a parent is punished for and which one isn't.
No, I was not aware. I was just being sarcastic, and this seemed a terribly obvious joke to make. I don't even read the Onion, except on the rare occasion it's linked from Slashdot.
I'd like to see the article that they wrote on this, though - i'm sure it's a damn sight funnier than my attempt. Got a URL?
First: I refuse to believe that problems cannot be solved with technology, as you claim, adturner.
Let's face it, this is a/. community problem that requires the community to fix it. No manner of technology can fix it.
You just saw the spamming-punk-kid problem fixed, not by the community, but by Malda wielding some nasty kung-fu. That's technology.
Second: This isn't censorship. This is a private forum; Andover.net owns it. They can do whatever they want with our posts, except change our words without saying so. And it's the group of individuals that compose Slashdot's "community" that does most of the moderation; Rob's system is a very liberal live-and-let-live-or-die one that lets us make our own decisions.
As an aside, I would like to see moderator points given out more often. I see a lot of gems that end up as ones, or zeroes if an Anonymous Coward posted 'em.
When a moderator knows his points are going to keel over and croak in seventy-two hours, he'll be more likely to use them on stories that are around now - maybe stories that don't interest him that much.
The short TTL ensures that moderation still occurs on slow news days. Without it, the only articles that got moderated would be the really popular pieces.
Yeah, the MPAA is composed of a group of nine ordinary people from California. (I didn't know there were any ordinary Californians, but whatever...) They just do miniature group screenings of films and vote afterward on a rating based on their own impressions of the film. It's pretty arbitrary.
I think that's one of their strengths. Rules and regulations suck, as a general rule.
I wrote an essay recently, for a college application, on the topic of Government interference in citizens' lives. I think it's really relevant here. Presenting an edited version...
I don't believe we encourage people in our society to take responsibility for their actions. Shirking responsibility, it seems, has become so easy and even so accepted that many people do it unconsciously - often while ignoring their own responsibilities. All too many people have a rather intense interest in doing things "for" other people.
To prevent my falling into the incredibly ironic trap of proselytizing for people in a post on that very topic, I should mention that my concerns about the attitudes of my fellow citizens toward responsibility are not rooted in altruism. For example, while I think it odd, I have nothing against people who hand off a large potion of their wages each week to be stockpiled by a faceless federal authority. That segment of the population should be allowed to do this as insurance against their own assumed inability to save the money for themselves. But it's not insignificant that there's little chance for people to take responsibility for their lives, or their future, or their welfare, if they're denied at least the option to do so. In reality, the entire nation, including me, is forcibly absolved of the need to take control of our lives in many select areas, without the consent of even a sizable minority.
The government does too many things for us that we should really be doing for ourselves. Among the major favors afforded us by our government in the last few years are a "Communications Decency Act," which, in effect, exempts parents from taking responsibility for teaching and monitoring their kinds use of the internet by "wiping out all the evil stuff." And just this month the government has decided to save us from our own bad instincts, even before we actually commit crimes, by relaxing restrictions on cellular phones tapping so that the FBI can listen in on any wireless phone call anywhere in the nation without a warrant.
The federal government really does seem to have us pegged as a pack of "irresposibles" even when we're at play. They're so sure I'll make the wrong decisions when I'm in my boat on a private lake, they just have to require me to strap on a big orange life preserver before using my own property.
Institutions have sprung up in the private sector that also relieve us of manifold responsibilities. Not the least of these is the Motion Picture Association of America, which labels films with one of five ratings, determined by a viewing panel of nine ordinary people from California (if ordinary people exist in that state). This system lets parents take a few hours off while the kids are at the movies, knowing that their children's' psyches are in the hands of some fine folks from Fresno. But what of the parents who want their sixteen year olds to see an R-rated film with friends, without parents? What of the kids who are trusted or mature enough to handle an R film?
Each year millions of Americans pay other people to take on some portion of their personal responsibility. Psychics, not psychologists, seem to be the advisors of choice these days. Perhaps that's because with a psychic all that messy thinking and decision-making can be done by a brain outside one's own head: less wear and tear, no guilt, and no accountability; just a bunch of answers.
And just when we need them most, along come the alien abductors: a great way to account for missing time. To say nothing of accounting missing body parts or missing acquaintances for that matter.
I'm not against having fun, but it's interesting to note the apparent rebirth of institutions designed, at least in part, to help us along with how we go about having that fun. Fraternities and sororities seem to have reawakened, country club memberships are at an all-time high.
And we certainly seem to have our share of cults.
Mass-murders are committed by teenaged gunmen without a single prominent reporter asking, "Where were the parents?". Yet ironically, a President's infidelities are explained away as being a result of his upbringing.
I look forward to the day when people who wish to live a life free of responsibility can do so, while people like me, who prefer to lead a life of freedom, are allowed to take responsibility for nearly all of their own actions.
And I don't think that it's right for society to forsake the children of parents who don't care.
So, basically, you're admitting that the parents' lack of caring is the root problem. (If I am incorrect in this conclusion, flame me via email.)
The solution proposed (universal regulation) is too broad - it regulates parents who do pay attention to their kids' values and decide differently than the Government does, for instance.
Politicians should instead attack the root of the problem: make parents legally directly responsible for the vast majority of their childrens' actions. A father who knows he will be tried for assault if his son beats someone up on the playground will spend a lot of effort making sure his son knows that violence is bad; the father will be incentivized not to become a deadbeat.
But politicians are currently spineless. This won't happen in the near future.
I'd vote for McCain because, of all the Republicans, he seems the most rational to me. The lesser of six evils, to pervert the saying. He's pro-choice, doesn't waffle on issues, has a backbone, admits to using drugs and cheating on his wife...
And tobacco companies should have their pants sued off if they mislead consumers. You can't have absolute freedom unless there are laws preventing things like fraudlent business practices.
Steve Forbes would be my second choice in the Republican party. I need to learn more about him before casting any final decision on the man, but I like what he says.
The rest of the candidates on both sides just make me shiver.
I've got a question for the Libertarians: I turned eighteen recently, and tried to register as one in New York State. I couldn't! They weren't in the list of political parties to choose from. (I picked Republican instead, for the record, so I could vote for John McCain in the primary; I intend to vote for the Libertarian candidate Harry Browne in the Presidential election.)
How can I register as a Libertarian in New York State, or can I not at all?
What's this I hear about the Russians parachuting film to Earth? Do they drop it from satellites or spy planes? I'm not grokking this. Anyone got clarification?
The Russians still parachute their film to earth; under ideal conditions a picture is available nine days after it is shot, and the wait has been known to take months.
As a teenager, I want better labeling of content so I can tell at a glance while scanning DirecTV's film listings which shows contain nudity, which contain wanton violence, and which are just pansy-ass dramas. With proper and thorough labeling, I can zero in on the shows that have the naughty bits, and not waste my time on other, less entertaining programming.
Anyone know where I can get some really high-res versions of similarly "kick-yo-ass cool" astro photography? Just purchsaed myself an Epson 3000 and am dying to make something like this into a poster.
I tell ya, I have little sympathy for whiners who just bought a G3 recently and are now bitching about how the G4 is rocking their world but they can't afford it.
Frequent these sites. If you had done even the most cursory check before buying your G3, you'd have found out that Apple has an 18 month product cycle, that the G3s were introduced over 18 months ago, and that the G4s were overdue and highly anticipated. You'd have heard about the new kickass plastics, the great new motherboard, and the cinema display.
The SGI flatscreen is just under 18 inches diagonally. It's 110 dpi. This new screen from Apple is 22 inches diagonal, and is probably 96 dpi or thereabouts at 1600.
The SGI and Apple screens have the same resolution (1600x1024).
I'm curious as to what you thought of Abe the Punk Hacker Kid. I think we Slashdot readers would agree that he's a hard act to follow - d'ya think your replies can be as well-versed, timely, and informative as his? And be frank here: which of you two is the better hacker?
Slashdot Mirror
Here are the relevant definitions from Merriam-Webster:
Emphasis mine. I've only snipped irrelevent definitions.
So, in short, there are a few aspects of Communism which the Free Software movement shares. But by and large, we're the diametric opposite of Communists: we hate central authority and control, we like owning our own computers and choosing which OSes we run, and we don't like serving other people. We serve ourselves. We code for ourselves.
In stark contrast:
I think that describes us pretty well. It's the definition of Libertarian.
My karma just got knocked down two points in the past hour; this indicates to me that I am doing a bad job moderating. News to me - I thought I'd always been sublimely fair and impartial.
But - here's the important part - I couldn't tell which of my moderations had been declared bad. Shouldn't there be some indication, maybe privately in users.pl displayed only to the logged in user, of what he is accused of doing wrong?
Of course, this is only worth implementing if meta-moderation proves it's worth keeping. Which I think it isn't. But I'm kinda biased on this, having just lost two karmic points for an unknown reason and I suspect an unfair one... so I won't go any father into this. :)
I am not joking here: I have whipped up a fresh steaming batch of perl that pages me when my karma changes, with the new value and how much it's changed.
Get the gun. Go on. Put me out of my misery.
If you post below your default +1, the current moderators can pump it up again... giving you even more karma. :) Then again, if someone is consitently a good poster, why shouldnt they have that mind-numbingly awesome karma, eh?
Go look at Bruce Perens. And, as the script kiddies say, phear.
Rob, your explanation of meta-moderation was a bit odd. Maybe that's because you've been ceaselessly laboring all labor-day... What do you mean by "A [MetaModerator] gets 10 comments..." - ten chances to moderate another moderator?
And - if I post anonymously, and that post gets cranked up three or four points by the moderators, I don't get credit for those points, do I? In order to do so, the system would have to remember (albeit invisibly) who posted that comment, therefore making it "non-anonymous".
Thanks a ton for the continued improvements.
If the series is shunted a few hundred years into the future, this stops being an issue.
Party pooper. :p
You've turned a nice profit selling books on free software. As I see it, this is much akin to hardware companies such as AMD, who sell their processors largely to Linux geeks, and RedHat, for obvious reasons. What other profitable markets or 'support industries' do you see emerging from the free software arena?
There are a number of things that disturb me about Star Trek, but most of all, I dislike the way the ships are run. If Commander Data can be created, why can't a starship be similarly intelligent and run itself?
I envision multiple-kilometer-long starships, some even maybe hundreds of klicks long, with millions of people on board; sort of like travelling cities. The entire inside of the ship would be something like a holodeck; it could be restructured at will in its entirety. There would only be backup crew on board. Everyone else would be a combination passenger/symbiont/pet.
Maybe the Federation doesn't have this tech yet. Why not skip the next series forward a few hundred years, to give us some new toys to play with, like Roddenberry did with ST:TNG over ST:TOS?
I've shamelessly stolen some of the ideas here from Iain M. Banks' Culture. He's got some of the best ship names ever. A few examples:
Finally: USS means United States Ship. How about FIV (Federation Interstellar Vehicle) instead?
I can't find myself making any reference to victimless crimes anywhere. What's more, I do like the laws of my country by and large, and I'd be better off living here than Antarctica, because I'd be freer here - ya can't have complete freedom without some laws.
And I didn't say laws shouldn't benefit people, either. I said they shouldn't benefit individuals or small groups alone. Read more carefully. Laws should be extensions of society's general ethics, and should be made to keep people out of each others' hair.
Parents of kids who make it their duty to get in neighbors' hair and commit jailable offenses have done society a disservice, because it's the parents' damned fault (usually) that the kid is being such an ass. If there are extenuating circumstances, those will be found pretty fast by the courts.
Forget how it benefits the family; if the family is raising kids who commit jailable offenses before they're sixteen or eighteen, then as far as I'm concerned they aren't fit to be free members of our society, let alone parents. Throw the parents in the slammer and transfer any remaining kids to a relative who can raise 'em properly.
You've got to stop thinking of law in terms of how it benefits people. Laws are made to keep people out of each others' hair... or, more accurately, they should be. They should not be passed for any one group's direct benefit.
The idea of a fine is a good one too, though. I'm sure it'd go over with the country as a whole a lot more smoothly... but it'd also have less kick-in-da-pants wake-up-call power.
All this would be judged by a jury in the courtroom; I can't imagine there being any national- or even state-level laws governing which actions a parent is punished for and which one isn't.
No, I was not aware. I was just being sarcastic, and this seemed a terribly obvious joke to make. I don't even read the Onion, except on the rare occasion it's linked from Slashdot.
I'd like to see the article that they wrote on this, though - i'm sure it's a damn sight funnier than my attempt. Got a URL?
First: I refuse to believe that problems cannot be solved with technology, as you claim, adturner.
You just saw the spamming-punk-kid problem fixed, not by the community, but by Malda wielding some nasty kung-fu. That's technology.
Second: This isn't censorship. This is a private forum; Andover.net owns it. They can do whatever they want with our posts, except change our words without saying so. And it's the group of individuals that compose Slashdot's "community" that does most of the moderation; Rob's system is a very liberal live-and-let-live-or-die one that lets us make our own decisions.
As an aside, I would like to see moderator points given out more often. I see a lot of gems that end up as ones, or zeroes if an Anonymous Coward posted 'em.
When a moderator knows his points are going to keel over and croak in seventy-two hours, he'll be more likely to use them on stories that are around now - maybe stories that don't interest him that much.
The short TTL ensures that moderation still occurs on slow news days. Without it, the only articles that got moderated would be the really popular pieces.
Yeah, the MPAA is composed of a group of nine ordinary people from California. (I didn't know there were any ordinary Californians, but whatever...) They just do miniature group screenings of films and vote afterward on a rating based on their own impressions of the film. It's pretty arbitrary.
I think that's one of their strengths. Rules and regulations suck, as a general rule.
I wrote an essay recently, for a college application, on the topic of Government interference in citizens' lives. I think it's really relevant here. Presenting an edited version...
I don't believe we encourage people in our society to take responsibility for their actions. Shirking responsibility, it seems, has become so easy and even so accepted that many people do it unconsciously - often while ignoring their own responsibilities. All too many people have a rather intense interest in doing things "for" other people.
To prevent my falling into the incredibly ironic trap of proselytizing for people in a post on that very topic, I should mention that my concerns about the attitudes of my fellow citizens toward responsibility are not rooted in altruism. For example, while I think it odd, I have nothing against people who hand off a large potion of their wages each week to be stockpiled by a faceless federal authority. That segment of the population should be allowed to do this as insurance against their own assumed inability to save the money for themselves. But it's not insignificant that there's little chance for people to take responsibility for their lives, or their future, or their welfare, if they're denied at least the option to do so. In reality, the entire nation, including me, is forcibly absolved of the need to take control of our lives in many select areas, without the consent of even a sizable minority.
The government does too many things for us that we should really be doing for ourselves. Among the major favors afforded us by our government in the last few years are a "Communications Decency Act," which, in effect, exempts parents from taking responsibility for teaching and monitoring their kinds use of the internet by "wiping out all the evil stuff." And just this month the government has decided to save us from our own bad instincts, even before we actually commit crimes, by relaxing restrictions on cellular phones tapping so that the FBI can listen in on any wireless phone call anywhere in the nation without a warrant.
The federal government really does seem to have us pegged as a pack of "irresposibles" even when we're at play. They're so sure I'll make the wrong decisions when I'm in my boat on a private lake, they just have to require me to strap on a big orange life preserver before using my own property.
Institutions have sprung up in the private sector that also relieve us of manifold responsibilities. Not the least of these is the Motion Picture Association of America, which labels films with one of five ratings, determined by a viewing panel of nine ordinary people from California (if ordinary people exist in that state). This system lets parents take a few hours off while the kids are at the movies, knowing that their children's' psyches are in the hands of some fine folks from Fresno. But what of the parents who want their sixteen year olds to see an R-rated film with friends, without parents? What of the kids who are trusted or mature enough to handle an R film?
Each year millions of Americans pay other people to take on some portion of their personal responsibility. Psychics, not psychologists, seem to be the advisors of choice these days. Perhaps that's because with a psychic all that messy thinking and decision-making can be done by a brain outside one's own head: less wear and tear, no guilt, and no accountability; just a bunch of answers.
And just when we need them most, along come the alien abductors: a great way to account for missing time. To say nothing of accounting missing body parts or missing acquaintances for that matter.
I'm not against having fun, but it's interesting to note the apparent rebirth of institutions designed, at least in part, to help us along with how we go about having that fun. Fraternities and sororities seem to have reawakened, country club memberships are at an all-time high.
And we certainly seem to have our share of cults.
Mass-murders are committed by teenaged gunmen without a single prominent reporter asking, "Where were the parents?". Yet ironically, a President's infidelities are explained away as being a result of his upbringing.
I look forward to the day when people who wish to live a life free of responsibility can do so, while people like me, who prefer to lead a life of freedom, are allowed to take responsibility for nearly all of their own actions.
So, basically, you're admitting that the parents' lack of caring is the root problem. (If I am incorrect in this conclusion, flame me via email.)
The solution proposed (universal regulation) is too broad - it regulates parents who do pay attention to their kids' values and decide differently than the Government does, for instance.
Politicians should instead attack the root of the problem: make parents legally directly responsible for the vast majority of their childrens' actions. A father who knows he will be tried for assault if his son beats someone up on the playground will spend a lot of effort making sure his son knows that violence is bad; the father will be incentivized not to become a deadbeat.
But politicians are currently spineless. This won't happen in the near future.
Just wait 'till I'm elected to the Senate.
I'd vote for McCain because, of all the Republicans, he seems the most rational to me. The lesser of six evils, to pervert the saying. He's pro-choice, doesn't waffle on issues, has a backbone, admits to using drugs and cheating on his wife...
And tobacco companies should have their pants sued off if they mislead consumers. You can't have absolute freedom unless there are laws preventing things like fraudlent business practices.
Steve Forbes would be my second choice in the Republican party. I need to learn more about him before casting any final decision on the man, but I like what he says.
The rest of the candidates on both sides just make me shiver.
Damn right; amen, etc.
I've got a question for the Libertarians: I turned eighteen recently, and tried to register as one in New York State. I couldn't! They weren't in the list of political parties to choose from. (I picked Republican instead, for the record, so I could vote for John McCain in the primary; I intend to vote for the Libertarian candidate Harry Browne in the Presidential election.)
How can I register as a Libertarian in New York State, or can I not at all?
What's this I hear about the Russians parachuting film to Earth? Do they drop it from satellites or spy planes? I'm not grokking this. Anyone got clarification?
As a teenager, I want better labeling of content so I can tell at a glance while scanning DirecTV's film listings which shows contain nudity, which contain wanton violence, and which are just pansy-ass dramas. With proper and thorough labeling, I can zero in on the shows that have the naughty bits, and not waste my time on other, less entertaining programming.
Bring on the new system!
Anyone know where I can get some really high-res versions of similarly "kick-yo-ass cool" astro photography? Just purchsaed myself an Epson 3000 and am dying to make something like this into a poster.
Hm.
These machines are still playing catchup with x86 machines, AND they come at a hefty price premium...The G4 costs 1600$, to start, and tops off at 3400$. A PIII will start in the mid-two-grand range, and top off well above four thousand dollars.
The G4 is - and I am probably understating here - at least as fast as the PIII at comparable megahertz.
Case closed.
I tell ya, I have little sympathy for whiners who just bought a G3 recently and are now bitching about how the G4 is rocking their world but they can't afford it.
It's called being an informed consumer.
Here are some Apple news sites:
Frequent these sites. If you had done even the most cursory check before buying your G3, you'd have found out that Apple has an 18 month product cycle, that the G3s were introduced over 18 months ago, and that the G4s were overdue and highly anticipated. You'd have heard about the new kickass plastics, the great new motherboard, and the cinema display.
All the data was right there. So don't bitch. Ok?
The SGI flatscreen is just under 18 inches diagonally. It's 110 dpi. This new screen from Apple is 22 inches diagonal, and is probably 96 dpi or thereabouts at 1600.
The SGI and Apple screens have the same resolution (1600x1024).
I'm curious as to what you thought of Abe the Punk Hacker Kid. I think we Slashdot readers would agree that he's a hard act to follow - d'ya think your replies can be as well-versed, timely, and informative as his? And be frank here: which of you two is the better hacker?