Why set someone straight when he can do it himself so much more effectively? Why act friendly when you're really not? It's harder to be compassionate towards abusive strangers, that's why we don't do it. We avoid compassion because we don't feel it. So when we finally break out of the cycle, we do so with careful baby-steps.
When people begin to do aikido, breath-exercises, meditation or similar, you get that "boost" to be able to make those steps. You can't get it from reading a book, listening to talks or watching a film as you can get from living it. If you have it already, consider yourself rich.
You know, in hindsight you can put almost any meaning into any expression. However, I'm sure the original source meant it as it sounds. Especially if you bring the context in.
The original author compared with the recent Adobe-incident of Killustrator. He presented a view where the it doesn't matter HOW the GPL is enforced as long as it is enforced. I presented the same argument, but with trademark. In both cases, the use of vigilante lawyers, or other excessive means, seems inappropriate to me. I just left it as an exercise to the reader to find that out. (If you lost track, you need to read the thread)
Wether if it's "okay" or not is pointless bickering. "Okayness" is subjective. You can't expect a change in behaviour by someone hitting you in your face by hitting back. That's exactly what's happening in destabilized regions of the world. Karma (the belief that someone hurt or pleased you) will just continue the fight until someone wisen up and calls it quits.
FSF doesn't have to do anything. Nobody just _have_ to react. Instead you can consider your options and figure out what's best. Bringing in analogies doesn't do anything but cloud the issue at hand and add fuel to the fire of _reaction_. When you react, you have limited sight and options. If all we do is reacting to circumstances, we're no wiser than animals.
How can the user infringe if the GPL supposedly has no restrictions on usage? Unless the GPL output is GPLed itself, as it was for bison, but that's a side-issue. For example, I'm perfectly within my rights/privileges gratiously handed down to puny little me, if I start linking closed source and GPL in my own projects. As long as I don't distribute it.
Personally I think the GPL has its place, but I think RMS and FSF should admit that if the GPL restricts dynamic linking, that is indeed a restriction on use. The phrase "Free software" is okay, since the software is still free, it's just that the distributors aren't. There should be no "fuzzy" areas.
Speaking of fuzzy areas, one way to judge in these cases would be see if the program can run and perform the functions within the library, adequately _without_ the dynamic library. So the user must indeed choose to use the GPL library him/herself. If it's distributed with the intention of linking with a GPLed library, it's leaning to the stance of the FSF IMHO. Remember that a licenses is not a program. It includes common sense, even though it doesn't always seem that way.
On the other hand, There's a law against Breaking and Entering my house. Now, in a sense, my house has poor protection - the brick walls are only a foot thick, the windows have easily breakable glass... in short, any fool with a bulldozer or a bit of semtex (hello echelon!!) could break in if they really wanted to. But there's still a law against their doing so. Without which I'd have no legal recourse if they chose to do so. It's my responsibility to take some reasonable precautions, and if I do, then an Insurance company (not the state) will mitigate my losses. But it's not my responsibility to make sure my house is a castle with a moat, portcullis, 12 foot thick granite walls and an army ready with the boiling tar.
Uuuh. It's my house. I bought it. I can do what the hell I want to do with it, including demolition. Don't you think making up such analogies rather than discussing the topic at hand is rather silly? (When reading your text again).
Good point. So such a system should include the option for the end-user NOT to spread the info around to other sites. Like advanced cookies. Of course, they can always decide to break that trust but then it's broken.
Others have mentioned profiles. If you want, you could use your "Santa Clause" profile to automatically register as Santa. I don't really feel the need for sites to know who I REALLY am, ala credit card registration. Too much privacy-invasion.
The true value of the internet was/is the openness and the fact that you can never really be sure who is who. Accountability is overrated, when it lacks, people have to start thinking for themselves more.
IMHO it's not very open if it prevents or deters other competing open source parties to use the technology. I don't think it's all too positive either, if the patent is used offensively (what you called: a defensive move to prevent the big nasty corps). It's a bit of irony if it works that way though.
For example: knowing how to make a cable TV descrambler was never illegal -- using one to get free cable was.
Well, now it is illegal - as long as it's a digital signal. You better watch your thoughts from now on. You were a bit on the edge there naming a device called TV descrambler, but you'll get off with a warning this time (notes your personal info in his book).
If we keep this up, soon we'll explode like lemmings too;-)
You bought the troll, now you have to live with it. He can't be anything but trolling. Nobody's that dumb, right? (I was about to post the same damn post as you;-)
On a serious note. Why is it that when a corporation accuse someone of a crime, suddenly teenagers get all their tech-eq confiscated and are arrested immediately. Like they are violent, dangerous and at large. Maybe he was pointing out the fact that the "bully-factor" of big corporations can get even foreign police to act on laws not present in their country. (DMCA is not Norwegian law, yet Jon Johanson gets seized)
The bigger they are, the more power they wield. Some force in society is lacking that can keep apart/split up companies in a constructive way.
His comment was interesting though, since most people mumble in their beard about Google all the time. Sure I use Google for 99% of my queries too, but GoTo actually returned good links on me now. So perhaps I'll revisit GoTo later..
...And become a henchman? Phlueeze, I've seen what happens to poor henchmen's families. I'd like to stay away from evil plots from now on thank you very much.
So your conclusion would be? That Artificial Intelligence is an oxymoron or paradox? That's all fine and dandy, but those who work with this stuff have to use some words to describe it.. That's why it's called artificial.
There's simply no clear-cut definition to it.
Sure it can. If everything fails, the expert system should contain questions about wether the user has modified the system in relevant ways. Wether it'll succeed is another matter though.
This is already happening. Kids are calling up stores to get the clerks to give them the CD-KEY and play Tribes 2, Quake 3 Arena, Counterstrike etc. I don't think I would ever do that (deprive another person his/her legally bought product), but some people have more flexible moral fibres it seems. It all comes down to where YOU draw YOUR limit.
I would say you understand economy well, but your conclusion is missing. When the government creates advanced technology like missiles, alot of it comes back in taxes, research and technology (that rusts away) that is true. Money is circulating in society, that is also true. Where the money flows is cruicial. What types of people get money and how is it spent? Rich people will spend on luxury, which will benefit circulation in society. While poor people will often spend on the cheapest products that will have a more dramatic effect on production and the resources available.
All this looks good, you can have a good balance. However, you conclude that it doesn't matter what you do as long as you produce? I'd conclude otherwise: Think of how dramatic you can change the world if governments spend money on things that actually benefits the population and environment?
People can believe what they want. I believe the president (especially the current) would be happy to push that button. Really. Don't consider YOURSELF in that situation, you would probably not do it - that's why you're not in that position either. People in power are people that love power and making powerful decisions. They get a rush from it.
I knew humanism isn't a new religion, but it's starting to sound like one. I've learned about it at school, but apparently that wasn't enough.
I thought it was a philosophy, but since its members can't readily define what it is, it's so broad even I can call myself humanist. I probably am too!
It seems to me that humanism basically is a reply to the logical fallacies and abuse of various religions, especially the christian bible - its portray of a vengeful God and evil man. Many of its followers have decided to cut themselves off belief, and instead base their lives on sound logical philosophies. Keep in mind though, that christianity is but one religion, that religion is often twarted by its followers and that humanism will probably fall prey to the same!
Btw, I don't consider myself to have a religion, or you might say I share whatever parts of religions rings true in me. My personal beliefs changes from one day to another as I refine the world around me (just like any other person, but I consider myself pretty open). If I am a humanist, I'm not just a humanist. Because I find stuff in religions that doesn't sound that bad either. Socrates prided himself in knowing nothing, the same you can find in hinduism. Knowledge limits the mind.
No. He is claiming that as a humanist he can accept that things are wrong without needing to pollute the concepts of "right" and "wrong" with his societies own values.
Okays, but there are many problems with this:
1) What rules and values do you use as a humanist.
2) What rules and values do you neglect being a humanist.
3) Who is to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong"? Isn't this like going into the same trap again, just based on "pure" logic this time?
This is not an attack on humanism itself mind you, it's just pointing out that humanism is not everything. It all depends on what type of persons are into humanism, and wether they REALLY care about people. If they don't, what's the point? Why do they do what they do if they don't love people? I'm not saying they don't, I just ask if they consider themselves loving. If not then think about why do they do it? (*phew*)
I agree strongly with his sentiment. It's the ultimate bullshit to sit the fence and say "you can't judge someone elses culture". You sure can and you damn well should.
Judging is not good. Judging is saying "you are bad and ought to be punished or denied such expressions". However, I agree it's hard to go through life without judging.
When you judge you focus on someone else's negative actions, instead of your own. You become a mirror to them, a feedback channel. Which could be good, but only if you inform them of your opinion. Not judge. Judging will most likely turn them away from you.
Humanism knows no borders.
So humanism is based on love, or is it based on cold logic?
Slashdot Mirror
Why set someone straight when he can do it himself so much more effectively? Why act friendly when you're really not? It's harder to be compassionate towards abusive strangers, that's why we don't do it. We avoid compassion because we don't feel it. So when we finally break out of the cycle, we do so with careful baby-steps.
When people begin to do aikido, breath-exercises, meditation or similar, you get that "boost" to be able to make those steps. You can't get it from reading a book, listening to talks or watching a film as you can get from living it. If you have it already, consider yourself rich.
- Steeltoe
You know, in hindsight you can put almost any meaning into any expression. However, I'm sure the original source meant it as it sounds. Especially if you bring the context in.
- Steeltoe
It's funny you should mention reductio ad absurdum, since that is actually my point.. Why you're a big fan of it beats me (other than entertainment :-)
- Steeltoe
The original author compared with the recent Adobe-incident of Killustrator. He presented a view where the it doesn't matter HOW the GPL is enforced as long as it is enforced. I presented the same argument, but with trademark. In both cases, the use of vigilante lawyers, or other excessive means, seems inappropriate to me. I just left it as an exercise to the reader to find that out. (If you lost track, you need to read the thread)
- Steeltoe
Wether if it's "okay" or not is pointless bickering. "Okayness" is subjective. You can't expect a change in behaviour by someone hitting you in your face by hitting back. That's exactly what's happening in destabilized regions of the world. Karma (the belief that someone hurt or pleased you) will just continue the fight until someone wisen up and calls it quits.
FSF doesn't have to do anything. Nobody just _have_ to react. Instead you can consider your options and figure out what's best. Bringing in analogies doesn't do anything but cloud the issue at hand and add fuel to the fire of _reaction_. When you react, you have limited sight and options. If all we do is reacting to circumstances, we're no wiser than animals.
- Steeltoe
How can the user infringe if the GPL supposedly has no restrictions on usage? Unless the GPL output is GPLed itself, as it was for bison, but that's a side-issue. For example, I'm perfectly within my rights/privileges gratiously handed down to puny little me, if I start linking closed source and GPL in my own projects. As long as I don't distribute it.
Personally I think the GPL has its place, but I think RMS and FSF should admit that if the GPL restricts dynamic linking, that is indeed a restriction on use. The phrase "Free software" is okay, since the software is still free, it's just that the distributors aren't. There should be no "fuzzy" areas.
Speaking of fuzzy areas, one way to judge in these cases would be see if the program can run and perform the functions within the library, adequately _without_ the dynamic library. So the user must indeed choose to use the GPL library him/herself. If it's distributed with the intention of linking with a GPLed library, it's leaning to the stance of the FSF IMHO. Remember that a licenses is not a program. It includes common sense, even though it doesn't always seem that way.
- Steeltoe
Because charging $2,000 for shipping a paper is blackmail, plain and simple?
- Steeltoe
Well, if you agree with the trademark, then why should you care who pays for its enforcement - provided that it is enforced?
- Steeltoe
On the other hand, There's a law against Breaking and Entering my house. Now, in a sense, my house has poor protection - the brick walls are only a foot thick, the windows have easily breakable glass... in short, any fool with a bulldozer or a bit of semtex (hello echelon!!) could break in if they really wanted to. But there's still a law against their doing so. Without which I'd have no legal recourse if they chose to do so. It's my responsibility to take some reasonable precautions, and if I do, then an Insurance company (not the state) will mitigate my losses. But it's not my responsibility to make sure my house is a castle with a moat, portcullis, 12 foot thick granite walls and an army ready with the boiling tar.
Uuuh. It's my house. I bought it. I can do what the hell I want to do with it, including demolition. Don't you think making up such analogies rather than discussing the topic at hand is rather silly? (When reading your text again).
- Steeltoe
Good point. So such a system should include the option for the end-user NOT to spread the info around to other sites. Like advanced cookies. Of course, they can always decide to break that trust but then it's broken.
Others have mentioned profiles. If you want, you could use your "Santa Clause" profile to automatically register as Santa. I don't really feel the need for sites to know who I REALLY am, ala credit card registration. Too much privacy-invasion.
The true value of the internet was/is the openness and the fact that you can never really be sure who is who. Accountability is overrated, when it lacks, people have to start thinking for themselves more.
- Steeltoe
IMHO it's not very open if it prevents or deters other competing open source parties to use the technology. I don't think it's all too positive either, if the patent is used offensively (what you called: a defensive move to prevent the big nasty corps). It's a bit of irony if it works that way though.
- Steeltoe
For example: knowing how to make a cable TV descrambler was never illegal -- using one to get free cable was.
;-)
Well, now it is illegal - as long as it's a digital signal. You better watch your thoughts from now on. You were a bit on the edge there naming a device called TV descrambler, but you'll get off with a warning this time (notes your personal info in his book).
If we keep this up, soon we'll explode like lemmings too
- Steeltoe
You bought the troll, now you have to live with it. He can't be anything but trolling. Nobody's that dumb, right? (I was about to post the same damn post as you ;-)
On a serious note. Why is it that when a corporation accuse someone of a crime, suddenly teenagers get all their tech-eq confiscated and are arrested immediately. Like they are violent, dangerous and at large. Maybe he was pointing out the fact that the "bully-factor" of big corporations can get even foreign police to act on laws not present in their country. (DMCA is not Norwegian law, yet Jon Johanson gets seized)
The bigger they are, the more power they wield. Some force in society is lacking that can keep apart/split up companies in a constructive way.
- Steeltoe
His comment was interesting though, since most people mumble in their beard about Google all the time. Sure I use Google for 99% of my queries too, but GoTo actually returned good links on me now. So perhaps I'll revisit GoTo later..
- Steeltoe
...And become a henchman? Phlueeze, I've seen what happens to poor henchmen's families. I'd like to stay away from evil plots from now on thank you very much.
- Steeltoe
So your conclusion would be? That Artificial Intelligence is an oxymoron or paradox? That's all fine and dandy, but those who work with this stuff have to use some words to describe it.. That's why it's called artificial.
There's simply no clear-cut definition to it.
- Steeltoe
Sure it can. If everything fails, the expert system should contain questions about wether the user has modified the system in relevant ways. Wether it'll succeed is another matter though.
- Steeltoe
Try uninstalling your ORBIT RPM. If you're using GNOME then you're in for a small surprise ;-)
- Steeltoe
Is that infringement of copyright?
Of course. No matter what we do, we should always feel guilty and pay tribute to the corporation head. Does that sound familiar to you?
- Steeltoe
If you have 3 pepsis, and you drink 1 pepsi, how many cool refreshing pepsis do you have left?
Piece of cake! None. You never owned the Pepsis, you just bought a license to drink it - nothing else.
-~^~^~-W3~0WN~Y00-~^~-!
- Steeltoe
This is already happening. Kids are calling up stores to get the clerks to give them the CD-KEY and play Tribes 2, Quake 3 Arena, Counterstrike etc. I don't think I would ever do that (deprive another person his/her legally bought product), but some people have more flexible moral fibres it seems. It all comes down to where YOU draw YOUR limit.
- Steeltoe
I would say you understand economy well, but your conclusion is missing. When the government creates advanced technology like missiles, alot of it comes back in taxes, research and technology (that rusts away) that is true. Money is circulating in society, that is also true. Where the money flows is cruicial. What types of people get money and how is it spent? Rich people will spend on luxury, which will benefit circulation in society. While poor people will often spend on the cheapest products that will have a more dramatic effect on production and the resources available.
All this looks good, you can have a good balance. However, you conclude that it doesn't matter what you do as long as you produce? I'd conclude otherwise: Think of how dramatic you can change the world if governments spend money on things that actually benefits the population and environment?
- Steeltoe
People can believe what they want. I believe the president (especially the current) would be happy to push that button. Really. Don't consider YOURSELF in that situation, you would probably not do it - that's why you're not in that position either. People in power are people that love power and making powerful decisions. They get a rush from it.
- Steeltoe
I knew humanism isn't a new religion, but it's starting to sound like one. I've learned about it at school, but apparently that wasn't enough.
I thought it was a philosophy, but since its members can't readily define what it is, it's so broad even I can call myself humanist. I probably am too!
It seems to me that humanism basically is a reply to the logical fallacies and abuse of various religions, especially the christian bible - its portray of a vengeful God and evil man. Many of its followers have decided to cut themselves off belief, and instead base their lives on sound logical philosophies. Keep in mind though, that christianity is but one religion, that religion is often twarted by its followers and that humanism will probably fall prey to the same!
Btw, I don't consider myself to have a religion, or you might say I share whatever parts of religions rings true in me. My personal beliefs changes from one day to another as I refine the world around me (just like any other person, but I consider myself pretty open). If I am a humanist, I'm not just a humanist. Because I find stuff in religions that doesn't sound that bad either. Socrates prided himself in knowing nothing, the same you can find in hinduism. Knowledge limits the mind.
- Steeltoe
No. He is claiming that as a humanist he can accept that things are wrong without needing to pollute the concepts of "right" and "wrong" with his societies own values.
Okays, but there are many problems with this:
1) What rules and values do you use as a humanist.
2) What rules and values do you neglect being a humanist.
3) Who is to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong"? Isn't this like going into the same trap again, just based on "pure" logic this time?
This is not an attack on humanism itself mind you, it's just pointing out that humanism is not everything. It all depends on what type of persons are into humanism, and wether they REALLY care about people. If they don't, what's the point? Why do they do what they do if they don't love people? I'm not saying they don't, I just ask if they consider themselves loving. If not then think about why do they do it? (*phew*)
I agree strongly with his sentiment. It's the ultimate bullshit to sit the fence and say "you can't judge someone elses culture". You sure can and you damn well should.
Judging is not good. Judging is saying "you are bad and ought to be punished or denied such expressions". However, I agree it's hard to go through life without judging.
When you judge you focus on someone else's negative actions, instead of your own. You become a mirror to them, a feedback channel. Which could be good, but only if you inform them of your opinion. Not judge. Judging will most likely turn them away from you.
Humanism knows no borders.
So humanism is based on love, or is it based on cold logic?
- Steeltoe