211–220 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose that would work for some trolls. Then again, trolls here tend to have advanced degrees in Computer Science, so might be more difficult to keep them out. PS - No, I'm not alleging that I have an advanced degree in CS. Nor am I denying it.
Where can I get one of these "advanced CS degrees" in black-hat trolling? I do have a CS degree, but I must have missed those classes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK. So let me spell it out for you (and others, who appear to be confused): Obama is a charismatic leader. Hitler was a charismatic leader. Obama was elected democratically. Hitler was elected democratically. Obama wrote a biography. Barack Obama - Dreams from my father Hitler wrote a biography; Mein Kampf Obama held a rally in Berlin. Hitler held a rally in Berlin. ...etc. Therefore, Obama reminds me more of Hitler…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
Also, you might want to look into some of the studies which show the link between one's inability to recognize sarcasm and dementia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So let me see if I have this straight. If I write some code and do not give it to you or anyone else, I have not taken anyone's freedom away. However, if I give you a binary of the code, but do not give you source, I have taken your freedom away? For that to make sense, there must be something you could do before I gave you the binary that you can no longer do. Please name what that thing is.
In cases like this, I prefer to equate Stallman's idea of freedom to Illich's idea of conviviality--a convivial empowers the user, and gives her the ability to mold it and use it as she sees fit. If you just distribute only a binary, you aren't distributing a convivial tool. When we lose control of the tools we use, ultimately we lose some of our freedom.
Stallman reminds me more of Steve Jobs than anyone else does: - 70's wunderkind - simple, clear belief about what computing should be - realized his vision, creating permanent improvement enjoyed directly or indirectly by every computer user - uncompromising in his determination to control his environment Personally I believe he has some major blind spots -- so did Jobs. The failure of this community to hold him in c…
It's obvious he hasn't updated the technology in his house since the 70s. I still can't believe how he is browsing the web.
"simple, clear belief about what computing should be"
He pushes his own version of freedom upon the world at the expense of their freedom.
"uncompromising in his determination to control his environment"
Exactly. Personally, I'm glad he is becoming less and less relevant. Stallman is nothing more than a software dictator.
You have to give the guy some credit; Stallman believes in the free software movement, fights for it, and refuses to compromise his rights or values.
Does he have the same moral reservations for other devices in his life? ie; what car does he use and own? All (modern) cars accept software updates which is his definition of a computer. Most modern televisions, dvd players, routers and even some microwaves/refrigerators can take firmware updates also. Genuinely curious about the above - Not being a troll, just wondering how far the man really takes his beliefs. Does…
The reason that he promotes free software is because software is capable of being free, that is, it is logistically realistic that people freely copy, modify, and distribute it. From this, he extrapolates that there is a right to copy, modify, and distribute software. If would be physically capable of modifying the code, but is legally prevented, then that is a restriction on his rights.
Under his reasoning, it also does not apply to firmware. Because it is so tied to the underlying hardware, it's not really possible to copy or modify it in any useful way. It is certainly free, in the monetary sense, but there are no useful results of doing so. Therefore, closed software does not restrict your rights in a meaningful or non-trivial sense.
Note that this is just my interpretation of what I've read of him, and I don't follow the Free Software thing that closely so I could be mis-interpreting key points.
Stallman reminds me more of Steve Jobs than anyone else does: - 70's wunderkind - simple, clear belief about what computing should be - realized his vision, creating permanent improvement enjoyed directly or indirectly by every computer user - uncompromising in his determination to control his environment Personally I believe he has some major blind spots -- so did Jobs. The failure of this community to hold him in c…
"70's wunderkind" It's obvious he hasn't updated the technology in his house since the 70s. I still can't believe how he is browsing the web. "simple, clear belief about what computing should be" He pushes his own version of freedom upon the world at the expense of their freedom. "uncompromising in his determination to control his environment" Exactly. Personally, I'm glad he is becoming less and less relevant. Stall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Richard Stallman is to software what Jean-Paul Sartres was to philosophy during his time and still now. JPS like RMS was living through his convictions and ideas to the point of refusing the Nobel prize because it would have tinted his motivations. RMS would do the same without any questions. Don't get them wrong: these people are not fanatic, they are just living and breathing a cause they started for a good reason.…
I don't mean to belittle RMS's achievements, but as a general point, I don't think that simply adhering to conviction is courageous. It's the easy way out. It's the way that doesn't address the greys in reality, for the sake of simplicity of what you believe in. You are not tested in your decisions, because you have already refused to make any.
I learned this trick when I was a strict vegetarian. I wasn't eager to confront people about their meat-eating, but when you don't eat meat, people pretty quickly jump to the conclusion that you think they're morally wrong to eat meat. The tension bothers them, so they bring it up in some awkward way. When my girlfriend's father did that (and later at one point her boss, at a company barbecue) I didn't want to get into the details, so I just said, "Well, it's a complicated issue." It was an honest statement, and I really had no idea exactly where I stood on eating meat, but I was so impressed with how completely it put them at ease and averted all conflict that I stored that memory away. Since then, I have used it many times dishonestly to avoid conflict with people who had power over me, my friends, or my family. Seeing gray is a "get out of conflict free" card.
I think the only time it takes bravery to see gray areas is when everybody else sees black and white. Otherwise, the "ability" to see gray helps you paper over disagreements and maintain valuable relationships with people.
Also, it usually isn't correct to think that a person avoids addressing gray areas by being black-and-white on a certain question. I am single, and for me, sex is an endless gray area. I have a conservative Christian friend who doesn't see any gray at all when it comes to premarital sex, but not because he's stupid or unthoughtful. He has to deal with gray areas in other places, such as divorce and state-mandated immunization against HPV. (His daughter will be immunized, and he thinks that's okay. He has friends who think it's not, and who are shocked by the fact that he doesn't resist in some way.) RMS sees gray areas in the use of non-free technology, and he makes concessions to reality. He's proud of his ability to use a completely free computer system, and he understands that it isn't practical for everybody, and he knows that even his success is limited to a very small portion of the technology that contributes to his existence. That's a gray area! I can understand where he's at. When I was a vegetarian, and now as a near-vegetarian, I know some people might think I'm being black and white to subsist on beans and potato salad at a catered barbecue lunch, but I think I'm being plenty "gray" by eating beans from a barbecue joint without asking why they taste so darned good. Everyone's thinking is gray someplace; the perception of "black-and-white thinking" is created by an observer focusing in on a certain place where he expects to find gray and is surprised to find black or white instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"70's wunderkind" It's obvious he hasn't updated the technology in his house since the 70s. I still can't believe how he is browsing the web. "simple, clear belief about what computing should be" He pushes his own version of freedom upon the world at the expense of their freedom. "uncompromising in his determination to control his environment" Exactly. Personally, I'm glad he is becoming less and less relevant. Stall…
Could you explain how Stallman is a "software dictator", or how his own version of freedom comes at the "expense of their freedom"?
Richard Stallman believes in the freedom of software, not the freedom of individuals. The GPL ensures that software is always free, by restricting what you as an individual can do with it. To him software being free in more important than a persons freedom. The BSD/MIT/ISC licenses give full freedom to people, including letting people make the software non-free, that is the freedom of choice.
I personally believe in the freedom of people. I believe people should be able to make their own choices, even if I disagree with them. That to me is true freedom. Richard Stallman believes that everyone should do things his way, that people should not be allowed to choose to do things differently. To me that is a form of fascism (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fascism).