"So even if you publish your own software on your own private website eventually you'll have to conform (or your software will be packaged to conform) to all this law, if you ever want it in a major distribution."
If you dont want to conform to debians rules then Fork and be Free.
Debians rules are imposed on debian developers by debian developers. Their rules imposed on YOU, they may apply their rules to your work if they are allowed and they want it, but they arent imposing on you.
In free software, or any voluntary organization, the power is at the bottom, not at the top.
It is said that Anarchy is the absence of rulers, not the absence of rule.
Take the free software movement as an example... the movement isn't ruled by anyone, the society of human individuals (programmers) can license their work any way they like, but they _choose_ to push for freedom on to others.
China is the cause of the US problems as its lending the US money so that the US can afford to continue to buy stuff.
I have an idea, maybe the US is to blame for being such a consumer driven society and wasting all their money on useless shipt that they hardly ever use and dont really need.
Its not the "commercial purposes" that are the cause of the problem, its the ethics of _some_ of the people who apply those commercial purposes, companies who violate the GPL will probably violate any other license as well, so its enforcment that is the problem, not the license.
The theory behind Software Freedom is that everyone (except copyright holders) is equal, commercial users have to compete with each other, and copyleft is supposed to be about encouraging the software to develop, not necessarily the programmers finances.
Interesting thing this quality you speak of, here is a quote from "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance"
"Phaedrus felt that at the moment of pure quality perception, or not even quality perception, at the moment of pure quality, there is no subject and there is no object. There is only a sense of quality that produces a later awareness of subjects and objects. At the moment of pure Quality, subject and object are identical...It is this identity that is the basis of craftsmanship in all the technical arts."
"And it is this identity that modern dualistically conceived technology lacks. The creator of it feels no particular sense of identity with it. The owner of it feels no particularly sense of identity with it. The user of it feels no particularly sense of identity with it.Hence, by Phadaerus' definition, it has no quality."
I think this quote explains commercial vs Free software. Free software is about quality, commercial software is about money.
Most professionals dont understand the concept of quality, professionalism is all about making compromises, a professional compromises his work to suit another purpose, be it to reach a certain market, demographic or price point. Professionals shouldnt talk about quality.
Someone please enlighten me. Explain to me how we, as programmers, are better off when the fruits of our labor are surrendered for free.
You are answering the question he should have asked.
You explain why Free software is good for all society, without discrimination. He is asking how Free software is better for the programmer than for other members of society.
Free software isnt about the programmers freedom, its about the software's freedom, he doesnt understand this.
There is a branch of philosophy called idealism which is pretty out there, it seems a bit crazy at first, but it deserves more respect than one gets from an initial glance.
All our experiences come from our senses, our eyes/ears/nose/skin/tongue send electrical impulses to our brain, the mind interpreters these groups of sensory experiences and we call it reality.
Idealism says (as best i can describe) that "reality" is the mind's interpretation of these sensory experiences, what causes our senses to send a particular sensory experience to the brain isnt directly knowable, therefore not as relevant as the experience itself.
It is the sensory experience itself that defines reality, i.e. reality is the effect not the cause.
What you describe sounds line a nightmare (if i am understanding correctly)... you suggesting we are going to create so many layers on top of problems that we are going to design ways to manage all these layers and one day its going to be come so complex that we are just going to say its intelligent ?
We still need to know what intelligence means as applied to a machine, if we dont then saying it is meaningless.
Creating layers adds inefficiency and there will always be efforts by programmers to limit the indirection around solving a problem.
Until we have infinite resources i cant see your layered AI poping into existance.
I think if i saw such a mess i would proclaim a miracle rather than intelligence.
As someone interested in philosophy i agree hes way off, you need to understand something before you can build it.
Before creating AI there should be some consensus as to "What is AI", "What is the mind", "What is consciousness", (and as you hint at) "What does it mean to be human" and lots of other fundamental questions.
The current problems of implementing AI cant be solved using computers.
We could consider current computers to posses a level of intelligence now if we wanted to (eg deep blue), it just word games really.
If you teach a monkey to behave like a human, is it human ?
"Free speech issues are about governments making laws to curtail citizens' freedom of expression.... But no one has a "right" to come on to private property and violate the wishes of the owners."
So who do you think governs these rights that you say people dont have ?
If you look at the way the various governments around the world have reduced the civil liberties of their own citizens then it should be obvous to all thats its not a 'war on terror' its a 'war of terror'
I believe his poit was that if a plane has an anti surface-to-air missile defense system then the "good guys" wouldn't be able to use surface-to-air missiles to shoot down that airline if was going to be flown into whatever important building.
So you are implying that there isnt enough consumer demand for internet filters for ISP's to justify implementing them server side.
If this is true then those who want censorship could still use the free client side filtering that the Australian government provides to any Australian who wants it.
To follow your wheelchair analagy, the Australian government has previosuly said that anyone who is in a wheelchair can have this free portable ramp that they can use and carry around with them, but the heelchair people are complaining that that they dont want to carry it around with them.
The argument is about convenience, not about functionality; it is NOT about providing services, they are being provided regardless, the question is about how those services are provided.
(im glad you can see flaws in capitalism, i see them too)
Is it a service to prevent the provision of services...
It is definitely not a service to provide people with something they dont want, so providing censorship can only be considered to be providing a service whilst it is optional. It will be interesting to see when/if it ceaces to be optional.
"They're simply mandating that ISPs provide a service for the people the government represents."
If there is consumer demand for ISP level censorship, then capitalism dictates that ISP's would offer such services (either that or there isnt sufficient competition to encourage ISP's to change).
"why are you allowing yourself to be deceived", well, the thing about being deceived is that you dont know it is happening, if you _know_ your being deceived, then deceived isnt the word you should have used.
What is the alternative to democracy... you may well be right in saying democracy is flawed, but unless there is a less flawed system then democracy is the best we can expect.
The only way to truely be free is to be alone, but thats not something a society can have.
Slashdot Mirror
"That you think otherwise just goes to show that you've never contributed."
And
"... Thus showing that you understand neither anarchy nor the free software movement." from another response
Well thanks for nothing... im glad i didnt spend five years with busybox and debian to try and impress you two.
If you mind isnt free, your body will never be.
"So even if you publish your own software on your own private website eventually you'll have to conform (or your software will be packaged to conform) to all this law, if you ever want it in a major distribution."
If you dont want to conform to debians rules then Fork and be Free.
Debians rules are imposed on debian developers by debian developers. Their rules imposed on YOU, they may apply their rules to your work if they are allowed and they want it, but they arent imposing on you.
In free software, or any voluntary organization, the power is at the bottom, not at the top.
It is said that Anarchy is the absence of rulers, not the absence of rule.
Take the free software movement as an example... the movement isn't ruled by anyone, the society of human individuals (programmers) can license their work any way they like, but they _choose_ to push for freedom on to others.
Those who are free to choose are not ruled.
But will you get to decide, or will you be presented with a viewpoint you expected to believe in ?
So, let me see if i understand this...
China is the cause of the US problems as its lending the US money so that the US can afford to continue to buy stuff.
I have an idea, maybe the US is to blame for being such a consumer driven society and wasting all their money on useless shipt that they hardly ever use and dont really need.
SCP cant list the contents of a directory, neither can http, there is no equivalent to ftp.
Its not the "commercial purposes" that are the cause of the problem, its the ethics of _some_ of the people who apply those commercial purposes, companies who violate the GPL will probably violate any other license as well, so its enforcment that is the problem, not the license.
The theory behind Software Freedom is that everyone (except copyright holders) is equal, commercial users have to compete with each other, and copyleft is supposed to be about encouraging the software to develop, not necessarily the programmers finances.
Interesting thing this quality you speak of, here is a quote from "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance"
"Phaedrus felt that at the moment of pure quality perception, or not even quality perception, at the moment of pure quality, there is no subject and there is no object. There is only a sense of quality that produces a later awareness of subjects and objects. At the moment of pure Quality, subject and object are identical...It is this identity that is the basis of craftsmanship in all the technical arts."
"And it is this identity that modern dualistically conceived technology lacks. The creator of it feels no particular sense of identity with it. The owner of it feels no particularly sense of identity with it. The user of it feels no particularly sense of identity with it.Hence, by Phadaerus' definition, it has no quality."
I think this quote explains commercial vs Free software. Free software is about quality, commercial software is about money.
Most professionals dont understand the concept of quality, professionalism is all about making compromises, a professional compromises his work to suit another purpose, be it to reach a certain market, demographic or price point. Professionals shouldnt talk about quality.
Someone please enlighten me. Explain to me how we, as programmers, are better off when the fruits of our labor are surrendered for free.
You are answering the question he should have asked.
You explain why Free software is good for all society, without discrimination. He is asking how Free software is better for the programmer than for other members of society.
Free software isnt about the programmers freedom, its about the software's freedom, he doesnt understand this.
There is a branch of philosophy called idealism which is pretty out there, it seems a bit crazy at first, but it deserves more respect than one gets from an initial glance.
All our experiences come from our senses, our eyes/ears/nose/skin/tongue send electrical impulses to our brain, the mind interpreters these groups of sensory experiences and we call it reality.
Idealism says (as best i can describe) that "reality" is the mind's interpretation of these sensory experiences, what causes our senses to send a particular sensory experience to the brain isnt directly knowable, therefore not as relevant as the experience itself.
It is the sensory experience itself that defines reality, i.e. reality is the effect not the cause.
The Wikipedia page doesnt do the topic justice.
Read about epistemology, the work of Berkley, Descartes... nothing about the mind is really proven.
Scientific principle doesnt mean much if we cant believe what we see.
What you describe sounds line a nightmare (if i am understanding correctly)... you suggesting we are going to create so many layers on top of problems that we are going to design ways to manage all these layers and one day its going to be come so complex that we are just going to say its intelligent ?
We still need to know what intelligence means as applied to a machine, if we dont then saying it is meaningless.
Creating layers adds inefficiency and there will always be efforts by programmers to limit the indirection around solving a problem.
Until we have infinite resources i cant see your layered AI poping into existance.
I think if i saw such a mess i would proclaim a miracle rather than intelligence.
If you have anything constructive and insightful to say a good person to contact would be Senator Stephen Conroy http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/senators.asp?id=3L6
As someone interested in philosophy i agree hes way off, you need to understand something before you can build it.
Before creating AI there should be some consensus as to "What is AI", "What is the mind", "What is consciousness", (and as you hint at) "What does it mean to be human" and lots of other fundamental questions.
The current problems of implementing AI cant be solved using computers.
We could consider current computers to posses a level of intelligence now if we wanted to (eg deep blue), it just word games really.
If you teach a monkey to behave like a human, is it human ?
Art belongs in the minds of those who appreciate it.
The value of Art is subjective, one price fits all is unfairly priced to everyone.
The volume of available art is driven by creators, the consumer driven marketplaces the cabals feed are a tangent.
Any artist who works for the money alone is not an artist.
Capitalism has never and will never fairly compensate artists, get over it or get out.
my 2c
'piracy' is not a legal term (unless talking about boats)
this is a tired and typical response
Well why dont you try and refute it instead of just making a baseless slur.
"Free speech issues are about governments making laws to curtail citizens' freedom of expression. ...
But no one has a "right" to come on to private property and violate the wishes of the owners."
So who do you think governs these rights that you say people dont have ?
If you look at the way the various governments around the world have reduced the civil liberties of their own citizens then it should be obvous to all thats its not a 'war on terror' its a 'war of terror'
I believe his poit was that if a plane has an anti surface-to-air missile defense system then the "good guys" wouldn't be able to use surface-to-air missiles to shoot down that airline if was going to be flown into whatever important building.
So you are implying that there isnt enough consumer demand for internet filters for ISP's to justify implementing them server side.
If this is true then those who want censorship could still use the free client side filtering that the Australian government provides to any Australian who wants it.
To follow your wheelchair analagy, the Australian government has previosuly said that anyone who is in a wheelchair can have this free portable ramp that they can use and carry around with them, but the heelchair people are complaining that that they dont want to carry it around with them.
The argument is about convenience, not about functionality; it is NOT about providing services, they are being provided regardless, the question is about how those services are provided.
(im glad you can see flaws in capitalism, i see them too)
Is it a service to prevent the provision of services...
It is definitely not a service to provide people with something they dont want, so providing censorship can only be considered to be providing a service whilst it is optional. It will be interesting to see when/if it ceaces to be optional.
"They're simply mandating that ISPs provide a service for the people the government represents."
If there is consumer demand for ISP level censorship, then capitalism dictates that ISP's would offer such services (either that or there isnt sufficient competition to encourage ISP's to change).
"... that aren't potentially harmful to free speech"
If your Australian you dont have a right to free speech (unlike most counties), so any potential harm is not legally relevant.
(was afk)
"why are you allowing yourself to be deceived", well, the thing about being deceived is that you dont know it is happening, if you _know_ your being deceived, then deceived isnt the word you should have used.
What is the alternative to democracy... you may well be right in saying democracy is flawed, but unless there is a less flawed system then democracy is the best we can expect.
The only way to truely be free is to be alone, but thats not something a society can have.