Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

osnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 236 posts

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#221

Post by stfu »

crgt wrote: post #100
stfu wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The signing is pure politics. He has to pick his battles and by making a point on civil liberties and playing up to the libertarian crowd he is not going to win a vote. He is more likely going to "make a point" on social issues aka health care, welfare and so on - things that play well with his electorate.

"playing up to the libertarian crowd is not going to win a vote" It sells music: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/30/news/kelly_clarkson_ron_paul...

It does, but Obama's focus has been on social issues i.e. pushing for the healthcare bill at all cost but at the same time supporting the post 911 security machinery and paying only lipservice to civil liberties. Just imagine the outcry a Bush/Cheney government would have drawn by signing a "no trial for Americans" act and adding a "but I won't eat the cookie, promiiiiiise" reservation.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#222

Post by ars »

dalke wrote: post #192
ars wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be reverse engineered pretty quickly. Reverse engineering code is pretty hard - but that sounds like a lot of motivation.

Did you read the link? "Unfortunately support for SEED alone is not enough to allow for secure transactions with Korean web services." There's motivation, but still something missing.

What's missing? The wiki page doesn't say.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#223

Post by muraiki »

zotz wrote: post #37
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…

> It's worth noting that Obama, upon signing, issued a signing statement... He originally promised not to sign it at all. Obama has no cred.

He threatened to veto it because it threatened his power. The Obama administration claimed that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists Act of 2001 already gave him the authority to detain citizens, and that the original act confused that (by requiring military custody). There is a section that says that the requirement for military custody does not apply to US citizens, but that does not mean that US citizens cannot be detained by the President in civilian custody. This is the section that a lot of people are getting hung up on and saying, "Well, it says right here that US citizens can't be detained." No, it says that US citizens aren't required to be held in mandatory military custody.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#224

Post by jimmeh2 »

I've often thought that Stallman was too prickly as spokesman or organisational leader, but I've never regarded him as being too extreme from a free software, ideological perspective. His thinking along those lines has always been meticulously careful and he generally sought out and found extremely competent legal advise. His basic mode of argumentation is to point out various legal exploits and note that there was no good reason to assume that government and industry won't abuse them if given the right set of circumstances.

It's a mystery why every ten years we have to have this discussion about whether we've entered a new age of ethical business and responsible government, where we somehow think that human nature and human organisations have changed permanently (through technological innovation!) in some egalitarian way.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#225

Post by dalke »

ars wrote: post #222
dalke wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the link? "Unfortunately support for SEED alone is not enough to allow for secure transactions with Korean web services." There's motivation, but still something missing.

What's missing? The wiki page doesn't say.

Strange! I go to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEED, I search for "not enough" and it's on the end of the first paragraph.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#226

Post by Andrew_Quentin »

muhfuhkuh wrote: post #180
sigzero wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am so glad that we voted for a President because now we can vote his ass out.

And, vote in what exactly? Another person who'll usher in 2007-8 Economics Redux? Another war drum beater, this time in Iran and N. Korea? Another tax-breaking, deficit-piling theocratic nincompoop? Or maybe Ron Paul? Just remember, just a couple months ago, the only viable alternative to run against Obama was a Pizza guy who continuously ran infidelity trains on whatever thing slunk in wearing a skirt. You think "pi…

Maybe Ron Paul. Why not. He is the best candidate out there. Better than Obama.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#227

Post by gcb »

pg wrote: post #170
jaekwon wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the "Right to Read" 1997-02... "Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing." -> Streaming content, DMCA tech "It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel." -> Jailbreaking "But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing…

Predicting DRM phoning home in 1997 does not seem startlingly prescient. Nor locked down systems; those already existed. The only novel idea I see here is the point that copyright, which was originally a restriction on publishers, has now become a restriction on consumers. But that doesn't seem so dystopian. Everyone is a publisher now.

what you think he said about copyright he said about pretty much everything else. fair use, openess, freedom, etc.

right, closed systems and draconian DRM already existed, fine. but neither were essential for our everyday lives in the way he put it back them. now it's obvious, of course. and apathy has already even ruled out anything wrong with it all.

heck people still thinks doctorow is clever for rewritting pretty much what stallman wrote years later.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#228

Post by gcb »

pg wrote: post #170
jaekwon wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the "Right to Read" 1997-02... "Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing." -> Streaming content, DMCA tech "It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel." -> Jailbreaking "But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing…

Predicting DRM phoning home in 1997 does not seem startlingly prescient. Nor locked down systems; those already existed. The only novel idea I see here is the point that copyright, which was originally a restriction on publishers, has now become a restriction on consumers. But that doesn't seem so dystopian. Everyone is a publisher now.

> But that doesn't seem so dystopian. Everyone is a publisher now.

saying that is ignoring the core problem. Since early on everyone wrote notes on textbooks and shared that. Everyone shared articles. in the 80's everyone hand out mix tapes. heck i did some movie nights at my place with more attendance than some illegal simpsons episodes get on some streaming sites.

my point, everyone always were "a publisher". That's a fallacy to ignore the main problem. it helps real publishers, i.e. someone who makes a living of that sharing/distribution, that failed to adapt to the times.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#229

Post by gorbachev »

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…

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/trust-me-is-no...

"Trust me" is not enough of a safeguard, says Amnesty International, as President Obama signs the NDAA into law

This holds especially true with Obama given how he's almost complete reversed his positions on law-and-order type of issues after he was elected.

Post reply on HN