Richard Stallman Was Right All Along • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#21

Post by Zirro » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:13 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #19

I just don't see the relationship between government overstepping the mark... and buying a proprietary product form a company you respect, because you want to use the product and are willing to sacrifice the desirable but non-essential quality of unfettered access to its innards. ...OK, actually I do see the connection. The suggestion is probably that if the technology is not totally open, you don't know how much pow…

... And OK, then you saw the point of the article, after all.

EDIT: Lesson to self. Don't post while you have a cold, and pounding headache as a result. It'll get you downvoted.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#22

Post by blago » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:13 PM UTC

wycats wrote: post #2

It's worth noting that Obama, upon signing, issued a signing statement that said that he was against the indefinite detention provision, and importantly, that he would not indefinitely hold Americans without trial: "Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most import…

This is even worse: all I hear is that it is a virtue to apply "our most important traditions and values as a nation" when speaking of first-class beings (citizens of our great nation), but we are not bound by anything to extend the same courtesy to others. Embarrassing, humiliating, and sad.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#23

Post by Tycho » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:15 PM UTC

Zirro wrote: post #21

Tycho wrote: post #19

I just don't see the relationship between government overstepping the mark... and buying a proprietary product form a company you respect, because you want to use the product and are willing to sacrifice the desirable but non-essential quality of unfettered access to its innards. ...OK, actually I do see the connection. The suggestion is probably that if the technology is not totally open, you don't know how much pow…

... And OK, then you saw the point of the article, after all. EDIT: Lesson to self. Don't post while you have a cold, and pounding headache as a result. It'll get you downvoted.

But the point of the article seems slightly different from Stallman's stance. The article said 'support Linux, even if you use Windows' - whereas IIRC the FSF says 'never use Windows' or something to that affect.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#24

Post by CPlatypus » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:15 PM UTC

lightyrs wrote: post #15

sp332 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He would have, but this bill included the funding for salaries of military personnel. He actually said, at the time that he signed it, that Congress had forced his hand. Edit: OK I don't really know if he would have. But he did say that.

You are being played. The Obama administration requested the indefinite detention provisions. What Obama actually means, albeit couched in very clever legalese, is that his problems with these "regulations" is that they even exist at all. He would rather his ability to prosecute the "war on terror" be completely unchecked.

"The Obama administration requested the indefinite detention provisions."

[citation needed]

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#25

Post by dpkendal » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:17 PM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #12

Take note who signed it.

A Nobel Peace Prize winner? The man who promised to close down Guantanamo Bay and has still yet to manage to do so? Whose election campaign promised "Change" yet whose only significant move in that way so far, in office for 3 years, is the repeal of DADT? The man who I (along with so many liberals) want desperately to believe in, but who just makes it too hard for us?

Yes, that man.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#26

Post by omarqureshi » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:18 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #23

Zirro wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... And OK, then you saw the point of the article, after all. EDIT: Lesson to self. Don't post while you have a cold, and pounding headache as a result. It'll get you downvoted.

But the point of the article seems slightly different from Stallman's stance. The article said 'support Linux, even if you use Windows' - whereas IIRC the FSF says 'never use Windows' or something to that affect.

Rather it's only use proprietary software if by doing so you are able to make it more free.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#27

Post by Zirro » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:20 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #23

Zirro wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... And OK, then you saw the point of the article, after all. EDIT: Lesson to self. Don't post while you have a cold, and pounding headache as a result. It'll get you downvoted.

But the point of the article seems slightly different from Stallman's stance. The article said 'support Linux, even if you use Windows' - whereas IIRC the FSF says 'never use Windows' or something to that affect.

That is true, and I agree with it. If that's what you meant, I apologize. My post came more out of annoyance that you kept adding more info with the "And OK"-label, which partially changed your initial stance.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#28

Post by rimantas » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:23 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #19

I just don't see the relationship between government overstepping the mark... and buying a proprietary product form a company you respect, because you want to use the product and are willing to sacrifice the desirable but non-essential quality of unfettered access to its innards. ...OK, actually I do see the connection. The suggestion is probably that if the technology is not totally open, you don't know how much pow…

I fail to see how that Stalman quote applies there. I may be missing something, but how the question what openness or closedness of software has really (I mean really not some hypthetical "possibly maybe somewhere in the future") to do with SOPA. I thought Internet runs pretty much on open source… Or is this now fashionable to bring Stallman into anything even remotely related, because he is like bible "open to interpretation"?

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#29

Post by protomyth » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:24 PM UTC

aamar wrote: post #18

OstiaAntica wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama the candidate opposed the use of signing statements. http://technorati.com/politics/article/signing-statements-re...

It's important to note that Obama makes clear in both his campaign assertion and his official memo that he does not consider signing statements to be problematic in and of themselves. Rather, he argues, their use should be limited in scope and reach, clearly stating that President Bush went overboard. From Politifact's extensive discussion: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/pr... Politifact co…

Politifact isn't exactly the beacon of truth it purports to be either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politifact - the SNL business was particularly odd

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#30

Post by SaintSal » Mon, Jan 02, 2012, 9:28 PM UTC

"His only computer is a Lemote Yeelong netbook, because it's the only computer which uses only Free software - no firmware blobs, no proprietary BIOS; it's all Free." Interesting that it's made in China. I'm trying to reconcile the implications of that... http://www.lemote.com/en/products/Notebook/2010/0310/112.htm...