Guido (the creator of python) mentions a story about a taxi driver not much unlike what has been already mentioned about an accountant: a non-programmer fits together a small script that glues together high-level components. I call that programming.
Also, RMS says in one of his talks: "anyone of reasonable of intelligence can learn how to program. They may not be able to do hard jobs, but they can learn enough to do easy jobs"
And back in the day, (not too long) before I'd call myself a real programmer, I could still use.bat gotos and javascript document.backgroundColor = chartreuse. Not "real" programming, but in some sense programming none the less.
Let's not underestimate the programming abilities of "non-programmers" (ignoring the contradiction of terms). But let's certainly not overestimate it either!
But I would say that there's no culture without "riping off".
Indeed--that's what copyright is meant for: creating incitement (in the form on restrictions imposed on publishers) to be creative, such that the humanity (or at least the `USAnity') at large can benefit from the work, being through reading it, performing it publicly, or, in your words, ripping off.
What would be bad for the culture in general would be if Joe Doe can make a living from stealing Bob Kane's or Joss Whedon's ideas without any kind of repercussion, because then there would be no incentive to create something original. The "culture" would die.
Nice way to prove that you don't understand how (at least some) artists think.
Let me give an example: one of my friends has written approximately three seasons of a TV show (aimed at 50 min / ep.). He's probably never going to see a dime for doing it, and it was probably never a motivational factor. Why did he do it? Because he found it entertaing.
Why do I write programs? Because I find it entertaining.
From RMS's bio (stallman.org): My hobbies include [...] puns, science fiction fandom, and programming; I magically get paid for doing the last one.
That's the artist/hacker spirit: we do whatever we do for the fun of it, and consider ourselves lucky to get paid for it. You might want to read http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html -- esp. the section `More than Money'
Mod me -1 Flamebait if you will; I'm just trying to explain the world the way I see it.
Disclaimer: I have had a real job doing one of the things I like. It was in some sense great, and in some sense not-so-great: it sucked out a lot of my capacity for doing the same thing as a hobby in my spare time, and the job wasn't exciting enough to fulfill my needs. As a consequence of my lukewarm attitude towards the job, I probably didn't do the best job I could have.
If you are 32 years old, you have `only' left out 11867 nights. I assume you didn't solve any puzzles those nights (mod me -1 flamebait if you want...).
On a serious note, though, we humans have a great tendency to remember the spectacular incidences and forget the nonspectacular ones. Bear this in mind when you read anyone's anecdotes, and tell anecdotes yourself (and, especially, bear this in mind when someone makes claims about `supernatural phenomena').
When I cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which? The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.
(paraphrase of the next paragraph of the same text) When someone views a TV broadcast, it doesn't hurt anyone else (but see also below)--it doesn't take away their ability to view (or not view) the same program.
Also, we shouldn't encourage paying for viewing proprietry broadcasts, since we then reward the people who take away our freedom.
I'm sorry that the closest-to-neutral term I can come up with is 'unlawful [action]'--some people might misconstrue that one is saying that because it's against the law, it's wrong. This is not true: the law doesn't define what is right and wrong; what is right and wrong defines--or at least should define--the law, which is a mere instrument to achieve justice. Of course, it's only succeeds some of the time (I suggest you view "The Devil's Advocate"--of course without rewarding anyone for taking away your freedom to copy it--or, if you can, recall the first and last ~10 minutes).
RMS objects to the word `content' on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html (I avoid using the word--I use the words data and/or information instead--but I don't feel strongly about its use).
I object to the term `protect': the information being broadcast isn't hurt from being viewed, and neither is the broadcaster. True, they may be unable to make money by their current business model, but as a--to some extent--advocate of the free market, I don't give a damn; if they can only make money by unjustly opressing their customers, they shouldn't be able to make money.
Also, no, the law doesn't define what's just/right/ethically accetable; au contraire, what is right, just and ethically acceptable defines what the laws is (or at least that's the way it ought to be), as I already mentioned.
---
You'll probably think I'm some sort of RMS/GNU/FSF/GCC/TLA fanboy, and to some extent rightly so--I do agree with most (but not all[1]) of RMS's values and conclusions. You, ebooher, will probably get your opinion of me lowered due to me being such a nitpicker, and I'll probably get modded -1 for some reason, but I think these points have to be made.
Footnotes:
1. I'm disagree with his conclusions in `why GNU su doesn't support the `wheel' group' (http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html _node/coreutils_149.html)--I think that wheel has an ethically legitimate use: to make sure that if anyone exploits a program running as `nobody', they can't become root. I haven't made up my mind as to whether exercising control over the machines you own (specifically over your users except yourself) is wrong, but that is--for the purpose of my counterargument--irrelevant: any ethically legitimate uses of anything shouldn't be prevented, and thus one shouldn't do blanket prevention of some object that has at least one legitimate use.
Specifically, I think it's ok for su to support wheel. RMS doesn't.
I'm not RMS, so I can't be sure exactly what he thinks, but I figure he would admit that there are some (to him) acceptable CC licenses.
My argument is the following: I asked him in email why he wouldn't recommend using "debian, main only" (which means you'll only get to see DSFG-free, which for all practical purposes is equivalent to being FSF/RMS-free, software). His reply was that it was too difficult to recommend "debian, main only"--that is, it would be too difficult to stress the `main only' part strongly enough that everyone would get it; the consequence would be that someone was thinking he was recommending "debian, period" (that is, debian main PLUS non-free software). In his response to my mail, he did say, though, that using "debian, MAIN ONLY(!!)" (did you see the big bold upper-case letters and exclamation marks?) was an acceptable thing to do.
So, this looks (to me) much like a case of the same thing: parts of CC is clearly (well, maybe not clearly, but at leat it is) acceptable to him, while some of it is not. In order to avoid being misunderstood, he chooses to uniformly not recommend CC.
Whether or not that's a smart decision is a totally different discussion. But I'll say one thing about this: there exists some really (and I mean totally, really unbelievably, mind-boggingly) stupid people in his country.
<input type=hidden value="Take for instance those who believe that president Bush really cares about terrorism"/>
PS: don't make wordplays about the FSF and/or RMS not being in your software (as in, FSF/RMS-free).
Doesn't that take a while to type?
on
Wicked Cool Java
·
· Score: 1
"This can be useful for suggesting pronounceable passwords and just such an example is given on pages 34 to 36."
That's one hell of a long password. I guess it's implied in the phrase `pronounceable passwords' that one is allowed to take coffee breaks;-)
As far as I have understood Onecare (I don't care much, since I don't use non-free software), it's a tool for removing viruses, spyware, adware, trojans and backdoors. Supposedly it should be able to run on Microsoft Windows XP.
But then the only logical conclusion is that Onecare is nothing more than the codename for the XP uninstaller.
I'm not speaking from experience, but it seems to me that 2 people will stay together if they want to stay together more than they want anything else.
Or they each feel that it's too much work to go out and start over in a relationship.
Strictly speaking, that example is rendundant--it's just a special case of wanting to stay together more than anything else (starting a new relationship in particular).
Nonstrictly speaking, though, I'm sure a lot of/.ers wouldn't have thought about just that particular example.
[PDF] doesn't support editing so well, so that's the real question. When you're sending a document, do you want the recipient to be able to edit the document easily? If the answer is yes,...
... then you mail the \LaTeX source code to the recipient as well--problem solved ^_^
If they add security measures to their system, already existing security companies will call them a monopoly and sue them, whereas if they don't, customers will get angry at Microsoft for not including everything in there for them and will switch to other systems.
The users will (eventually) switch, no matter what.
"I'm not pissed off at microsoft!" "You will be. You... will be."
Slashdot Mirror
And sadly, above average smartness is in short supply.
You know how stupid the average person is. Statistically, half of them are even stupider!
Isn't that what PERL is all about?
t ream_id=240
.bat gotos and javascript document.backgroundColor = chartreuse. Not "real" programming, but in some sense programming none the less.
No, that's what python is all about: http://www.python.org/doc/essays/cp4e.html and http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_play_stream.html?s
Guido (the creator of python) mentions a story about a taxi driver not much unlike what has been already mentioned about an accountant: a non-programmer fits together a small script that glues together high-level components. I call that programming.
Also, RMS says in one of his talks: "anyone of reasonable of intelligence can learn how to program. They may not be able to do hard jobs, but they can learn enough to do easy jobs"
And back in the day, (not too long) before I'd call myself a real programmer, I could still use
Let's not underestimate the programming abilities of "non-programmers" (ignoring the contradiction of terms). But let's certainly not overestimate it either!
But I would say that there's no culture without "riping off".
Indeed--that's what copyright is meant for: creating incitement (in the form on restrictions imposed on publishers) to be creative, such that the humanity (or at least the `USAnity') at large can benefit from the work, being through reading it, performing it publicly, or, in your words, ripping off.
What would be bad for the culture in general would be if Joe Doe can make a living from stealing Bob Kane's or Joss Whedon's ideas without any kind of repercussion, because then there would be no incentive to create something original. The "culture" would die.
Nice way to prove that you don't understand how (at least some) artists think.
Let me give an example: one of my friends has written approximately three seasons of a TV show (aimed at 50 min / ep.). He's probably never going to see a dime for doing it, and it was probably never a motivational factor. Why did he do it? Because he found it entertaing.
Why do I write programs? Because I find it entertaining.
From RMS's bio (stallman.org): My hobbies include [...] puns, science fiction fandom, and programming; I magically get paid for doing the last one.
That's the artist/hacker spirit: we do whatever we do for the fun of it, and consider ourselves lucky to get paid for it. You might want to read http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html -- esp. the section `More than Money'
Mod me -1 Flamebait if you will; I'm just trying to explain the world the way I see it.
Disclaimer: I have had a real job doing one of the things I like. It was in some sense great, and in some sense not-so-great: it sucked out a lot of my capacity for doing the same thing as a hobby in my spare time, and the job wasn't exciting enough to fulfill my needs. As a consequence of my lukewarm attitude towards the job, I probably didn't do the best job I could have.
Very interesting.
If you are 32 years old, you have `only' left out 11867 nights. I assume you didn't solve any puzzles those nights (mod me -1 flamebait if you want...).
On a serious note, though, we humans have a great tendency to remember the spectacular incidences and forget the nonspectacular ones. Bear this in mind when you read anyone's anecdotes, and tell anecdotes yourself (and, especially, bear this in mind when someone makes claims about `supernatural phenomena').
Keeping-both-your-feet-on-the-ground-'ly yours,
Jonas
I object to you using the word 'steal'
l _node/coreutils_149.html)--I think that wheel has an ethically legitimate use: to make sure that if anyone exploits a program running as `nobody', they can't become root. I haven't made up my mind as to whether exercising control over the machines you own (specifically over your users except yourself) is wrong, but that is--for the purpose of my counterargument--irrelevant: any ethically legitimate uses of anything shouldn't be prevented, and thus one shouldn't do blanket prevention of some object that has at least one legitimate use.
When I cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which? The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.
(Why software should not have owners, RMS, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html)
(paraphrase of the next paragraph of the same text) When someone views a TV broadcast, it doesn't hurt anyone else (but see also below)--it doesn't take away their ability to view (or not view) the same program.
Also, we shouldn't encourage paying for viewing proprietry broadcasts, since we then reward the people who take away our freedom.
I'm sorry that the closest-to-neutral term I can come up with is 'unlawful [action]'--some people might misconstrue that one is saying that because it's against the law, it's wrong. This is not true: the law doesn't define what is right and wrong; what is right and wrong defines--or at least should define--the law, which is a mere instrument to achieve justice. Of course, it's only succeeds some of the time (I suggest you view "The Devil's Advocate"--of course without rewarding anyone for taking away your freedom to copy it--or, if you can, recall the first and last ~10 minutes).
RMS objects to the word `content' on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html (I avoid using the word--I use the words data and/or information instead--but I don't feel strongly about its use).
I object to the term `protect': the information being broadcast isn't hurt from being viewed, and neither is the broadcaster. True, they may be unable to make money by their current business model, but as a--to some extent--advocate of the free market, I don't give a damn; if they can only make money by unjustly opressing their customers, they shouldn't be able to make money.
Also, no, the law doesn't define what's just/right/ethically accetable; au contraire, what is right, just and ethically acceptable defines what the laws is (or at least that's the way it ought to be), as I already mentioned.
---
You'll probably think I'm some sort of RMS/GNU/FSF/GCC/TLA fanboy, and to some extent rightly so--I do agree with most (but not all[1]) of RMS's values and conclusions. You, ebooher, will probably get your opinion of me lowered due to me being such a nitpicker, and I'll probably get modded -1 for some reason, but I think these points have to be made.
Footnotes:
1. I'm disagree with his conclusions in `why GNU su doesn't support the `wheel' group' (http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/htm
Specifically, I think it's ok for su to support wheel. RMS doesn't.
where most of us would LIKE TO BE
Why in the world would you give [it] up?
I think you answer that question yourself--most != all.
I'm not RMS, so I can't be sure exactly what he thinks, but I figure he would admit that there are some (to him) acceptable CC licenses.
/>
My argument is the following: I asked him in email why he wouldn't recommend using "debian, main only" (which means you'll only get to see DSFG-free, which for all practical purposes is equivalent to being FSF/RMS-free, software). His reply was that it was too difficult to recommend "debian, main only"--that is, it would be too difficult to stress the `main only' part strongly enough that everyone would get it; the consequence would be that someone was thinking he was recommending "debian, period" (that is, debian main PLUS non-free software). In his response to my mail, he did say, though, that using "debian, MAIN ONLY(!!)" (did you see the big bold upper-case letters and exclamation marks?) was an acceptable thing to do.
So, this looks (to me) much like a case of the same thing: parts of CC is clearly (well, maybe not clearly, but at leat it is) acceptable to him, while some of it is not. In order to avoid being misunderstood, he chooses to uniformly not recommend CC.
Whether or not that's a smart decision is a totally different discussion. But I'll say one thing about this: there exists some really (and I mean totally, really unbelievably, mind-boggingly) stupid people in his country.
<input type=hidden value="Take for instance those who believe that president Bush really cares about terrorism"
PS: don't make wordplays about the FSF and/or RMS not being in your software (as in, FSF/RMS-free).
"This can be useful for suggesting pronounceable passwords and just such an example is given on pages 34 to 36."
;-)
That's one hell of a long password. I guess it's implied in the phrase `pronounceable passwords' that one is allowed to take coffee breaks
As far as I have understood Onecare (I don't care much, since I don't use non-free software), it's a tool for removing viruses, spyware, adware, trojans and backdoors. Supposedly it should be able to run on Microsoft Windows XP.
But then the only logical conclusion is that Onecare is nothing more than the codename for the XP uninstaller.
My God Oh, that's completely ack basswards! ;-)
S haggy_Dog/On%20Holy%20Wars%20and%20a%20Plea%20for% 20Peace.html .1+ TMG 95:05:20 61-01-5002 dnuora detsoP
:P
You all need to read `on holy wars and a plea for peace': http://www.csd.uwo.ca/staff/magi/personal/humour/
(wakarimasu ka ^_^).
And btw, my way of doing things (which of course is "D-YYYY-hh ss:MM:mm") is the only right way
I'm not speaking from experience, but it seems to me that 2 people will stay together if they want to stay together more than they want anything else.
/.ers wouldn't have thought about just that particular example.
Or they each feel that it's too much work to go out and start over in a relationship.
Strictly speaking, that example is rendundant--it's just a special case of wanting to stay together more than anything else (starting a new relationship in particular).
Nonstrictly speaking, though, I'm sure a lot of
[PDF] doesn't support editing so well, so that's the real question. When you're sending a document, do you want the recipient to be able to edit the document easily? If the answer is yes, ...
... then you mail the \LaTeX source code to the recipient as well--problem solved ^_^
You greatly underestimate the trouble an extremely large DDOS network can cause via sheer packet volume.
/. ^_^
Unless your site has been mentioned in a story here on
If they add security measures to their system, already existing security companies will call them a monopoly and sue them, whereas if they don't, customers will get angry at Microsoft for not including everything in there for them and will switch to other systems.
The users will (eventually) switch, no matter what.
"I'm not pissed off at microsoft!"
"You will be. You... will be."