cynicist
-
Posts
917 -
Joined
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by cynicist
-
-
I see the purpose of the GPL as keeping the "pool" of all GPL code from helping closed-source developers. This helps GPL programs relative to closed-source ones so that someone going by functionality alone will be more likely to choose the GPL program, and thus give less money to closed-source developers and more feedback to GPL projects. If people already shunned closed-source programs, the GPL wouldn't matter much because most things would be open-source.
The purpose is not to keep GPL code from helping closed source developers. Many game developers use Ogg Vorbis (which is an open audio format and library) to encode assets for their proprietary games. The point is to keep people from taking GPL code and making it closed-source. Part of the reason there are many companies willing to contribute code to the Linux kernel is that they know it is illegal for their competitors to take their contributions while keeping their own private in order to make their product superior.
Unless a third-party which didn't sign the contract comes into possession of the code (see The Contractual Approach part way down the page).
Edit: I've changed my mind. I realize that after a certain level of momentum it's going to be really difficult to compete with open-source anyway so this stuff probably won't be necessary.
When you're renting an apartment the owner is giving up the ability to have others rent it, and your use can damage it. Neither applies to someone's code.
I get the scarcity argument around property, and maybe enough people will donate that it won't matter much in the future, but otherwise I could definitely see some sort of a creative contractual arrangement. (Like refusing access to particular content provider services if you share that content with those outside of that network, though I'm not sure about code)
Edit: I've changed my mind and I think you are right. You can claim ownership over the original but you can't do anything about the copies. The only solution really is to pay the author in order to encourage more original works that everyone can copy. The above situation will work to some limited degree for certain types of works but it's not a good model.
My issues with GPL are for example with website building. I don't do much of that myself, but I did work with a small company that did for awhile. They built very complex websites for businesses, sites with huge custom interactive databases that took much more time and energy to develop than your average site. A ton of legwork and meetings, and planning and a lot of invesment on the sales end. And it seemed without fail each client would hire them to get the site built, and then as soon as it was up and running, the client would dump them (because they weren't cheap, and the work they did was complex) demand a copy of the code and hire some guy working out of his basement to take it from there. It was a double loss in the sense that not only were they losing a client, but they were essentially being forced to teach their competition how to do what they do.
That's why you setup contracts to get payment once the site is complete. You can't hide web code very well because it's interpreted rather than compiled. That's not really a GPL issue imo. I mean in that it's not an ongoing community effort, once they pay for the site you can charge them for maintaining it as well and if they choose to go with a guy working out of his basement they may suffer from lower quality code. -
Thank you for that. I had not thought of it that way before. Wow.
I just recently switched over from developing on Gnu/Linux platforms to BSD, and felt guilty about liking it better (because it is!) Now I can tell the RMS in my head that although I respect his contribution to free software, I can not support the initiation of the use of force.
It's not that simple. In a free society you would be able to have contracts that prevent turning open code into proprietary products. We have no alternative to the legal system at the moment because the state prevents one from forming, so I don't think you can criticize Stallman for that.
Neither approach is more free, but I prefer control of the code to be in the hands of the user rather than companies because that allows you to fix or improve what you own even after that company is gone or drops support for their products. If someone takes the code you worked on and makes a successful product from it they have helped a lot of people, but if you want them to share those changes I think there should be a legal way for you to do that. (It's like a condition for using your code, just like you have conditions on renting an apartment for example)
Either way why feel guilty? I value the openness of Ubuntu for practical reasons of security and the feeling of community and trust that derives from it, and if BSD does that for you I think that's great.
-
I still found it frustrating though. The same way I would have found a show about men being the serial cheaters and emotional unavailable fuckfaces they are frustrating if it omitted the data for women.It is a purely personal perspective though, I'm sure some people wouldnt have found it as enjoyable if both sets of facts were presented.
Yeah no thanks, I prefer not to have data regurgitated at me without context in the interest of "balance". I'd rather hear the stats that go unmentioned elsewhere. If Stefan wants to do a show about men that's great but I wouldn't expect him to mix in female stats in order to not upset people.
-
I find when I am doing work on a computer I get this impulse to start walking and I just do a lap of my house before returning to do my work.
Me too, fresh air and getting the blood pumping a bit do a lot to clear up my thinking.
-
Found this one in Kevin's profile. I have a good remix of a Marina And The Diamonds song, but I didn't know how good their original stuff was.
-
So... make something up (the non-aggression principle) and it IS okay to dominate the land and animals (use force) for profit since the animals don't have the resolve to fight back, but it IS NOT okay for the BLM to dominate the humans (use force) for profit (probably fracking)?
Seems a little inconsistent. Please advise.
Last time I checked, wild animals couldn't negotiate or follow principles. Treating them like they could would be inconsistent.
-
Steve is pretty clear about it, and I believe he speaks for most of the population:
He's right. I mean if you like someone as a friend and also find them sexually attractive, why wouldn't you want a romantic relationship with them? Makes sense to me, but maybe we can get female input on this?
-
I wanted to add my own experience to this. I had a father growing up until about the age of 11, when he died. Prior to that he was sporadic: There were times when he would play games with me that I would really enjoy and show interest in me, and other times he would be distant, withdrawn. I recognize some guys as more attractive than others but never in a sexually desirable way like I do with women.
Not having a father during puberty and into adulthood has been somewhat of a nightmare. Couple the lack of male role models with a controlling mother and it's no surprise I had difficulty approaching women. I ended up in a place similar to what Kevin described, looking at all romantic relationship as kind of false/toxic.
Did you have zero father figure when you were growing up? Do you/did you find yourself going out of your way to please folks? Even folks that weren't worth the effort to you? It's one thing to go out of your way to please a long term romantic partner or somebody to whom you have a loyal and fulfilling bond, it's another to "do stuff" for folks that barely give you much in return save for excuses of why they don't want to hang out much. Sound familiar?
Yeah definitely. I felt like I had to prove myself to everybody. Prove that I had value, something to offer. I think this mostly comes from the lack of bonding with my mother and my subsequent attempts to get her attention as a child, but not having a father during my teen years did also make me feel insecure about being a man. Maybe if he had been there I would have been more confident in myself.
This would theoretically lead to hypersexuality, and a very short-term, reproduce as fast as possible type of mindset for either gender.
Unless you were raised catholic and shamed about your sexuality. I can't imagine what it would have been like to be interested in men at the same time. My ex-friend (whose family was christian) was so confused about his sexuality that he went from straight > gay > bi. (I mean in behavior, he was always bi in the end)
It was funny when he came out to me about being gay, I ended up saying something like, "Well yeah, that's not surprising". I got the sense he feared what my response would be, but even way back then I never understood what the big deal was about. His parents had taught him it was something to be ashamed of and rejected, and so he expected something similar from me I guess.
-
I was severely depressed for about 3 years. I went from being somewhat popular at my high school one year to eating lunch in the bathroom the next year. I started to become extremely paranoid about other people, and secretly hateful towards them. I avoided eye contact and was basically constantly living in fear of being attacked by others - no one was acknowledging all the crazy terrible shit that had happened in my family, and if they did, it was always to manage my perception of my mother and father - "Oh, it's really amazing that he's able to support you kids!" and "You know she loves you right?" and other nonsense which was completely irrelevant to me and aimed at squashing my feelings.
What you went through was scary and awful to read. I've been through this (what you call paranoia and avoiding eye contact) but how is their irrational propaganda not an attack? I mean they are challenging your very perception of reality. Paranoia is about delusions and you were right about what they were trying to do, not imagining it. You're also aware that most people are like this, so caution around them is not a bad thing to have at all. Fear might be too strong, but I look at irrational people like they are broken, just robots programmed to manipulate themselves and others, and they become less frightening as a result.
I think I associated irrational with unpredictable before then and that made things worse for me. The signs are always there early if you look for them.
feeling of lightness comes over me, like im not held to the ground, i feel, i failure all around me and my life, my thoughts become riddled with ”I can’t do
this” or “why the fuck can't i do this”, “i just need to do this”.... It usually happens when i'm trying to do something that will help me, like getting a job or completing essays to pass a class.
I want to say first that your parents and that counselor are sadistic assholes. I can't believe after all that failure... he told you to go to the military. He not only can't do his job but sends you to a mental slaughterhouse. I mean your parents are obviously evil but for you to reach out and for that person to grind you down further because of their own issues is so repulsive to me. I'm pissed.
I recognize this behavior you are talking about, self-sabotage I guess you would call it, in myself. I feel overwhelmed usually, like my brain is in overdrive. Why do you think it is happening for you?
-
I want to be let alone to make my own life... How do I frame it to avoid getting catch in their ill-interactions.
I'll appreciate the input.
You know the storm will come if you leave or you wouldn't be asking how to avoid it, so the answer here is that you need your husband's support in order to persevere through it. Therapy is good but it can't replace assurance from those you care about.
My husband just tells me to go with the flow, or ignore them, but the truth is that interacting with them irritates me and changes my state of mind.
Have you told him that you don't want anything to do with them anymore?
-
They also call them laws instead of legislation. I think this invalidates the State as a source for term definitions. I think this begs the question of whether "legal right" and "right" are the same word. If it were, they wouldn't need the "legal" qualifier out front. I would argue the fact that it's called LEGAL right indicates they're not talking about rights at all.
I only specified legal to indicate rights that are acknowledged by the legal system. Other people claim rights that are not acknowledged. (right to a job, right to an education, right to internet access... yes the UN considers internet access to be a fundamental human right)
There are still others who make a distinction between what they call 'natural' rights and 'legal' rights, but if you want to make that argument there is a lot of clarification necessary.
-
I listed the definition from blacks law dictionary in my first post, it says nothing about free service, nor does the sixth amendment. Can you cite one that does?
The sixth amendment doesn't define what the right to counsel is beyond "the assistance of counsel" which is why courts have interpreted it to mean that if you are too poor to hire one then the state must provide one for you. The sixth amendment also mentions a right to an impartial jury, which means that the state is required to provide you with a jury that is impartial. (My point is to say that part of what constitutional rights are includes obligations or requirements on the state, not just freedoms for the individual and of which, the right to counsel is just one of many)
It took me a while but I found a reference which cites Black's Law Dictionary 139 (9th ed. 2009), stating the right to counsel as:
"A criminal defendant's constitutional right, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, to representation by a court-appointed lawyer if the defendant cannot afford to hire one."
If you search any other dictionary besides that one (which is hard to search on the internet for some reason) the sources are plentiful.
Since Stef's argument is that the state created rights to "sell" us something lets look at what the state defines a "right" as. Blacks law 4th edition defines a right as "a power, privilege, faculty, or demandinherent in one person and incident upon another ... powers of free action." Now inherent is defined as "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute." So the state defines a right as a power or privilege that's a permanent and essential attribute of a person. Nowhere does it say it's a gift of the state.
Even looking at your first post you include 'privilege and demand inherent in one person and incident upon another" as part of your definition of a right. So if I say I have a privilege to or I demand a free education which is paid for by others and say that this is a permanent and essential attribute, who can say that is not a right of mine?
If rights are just freedoms we possess, then why have a constitution at all? Or why have amendments to it afterwards? The whole point is to define limits for the state (which exists as a concept in order to violate self-ownership and property) so that things are less crazy.
A right can never require positive action, otherwise, rights would be arbitrary and irrelevant.
A right can be whatever the law says it is, which makes it arbitrary and irrelevant. Just look at any legal right and how it has changed over time based on court decisions. Courts try to go by precedent because that makes the law a bit less random and insane but there is nothing to say that they have to.
-
Nice, absolutely necessary information for philosophers. Your enthusiasm for his work caused me to look for some of his material on the web and I came across 3 full philosophy courses of his on Youtube called Philosophy of the Mind, Philosophy of Society, and Philosophy of Language. Apparently UC Berkeley broadcasts a lot of their courses. (Unfortunately without video)
-
Although ending your life would also end your ability to make decisions, by telling you that you are NOT ALLOWED to commit suicide, isn't that ALSO, limiting your ability to make decisions?
Not to the same degree.
Yeah, but wouldn't it have been nice if instead of "If you are thinking about suicide you are crazy." which encourages you to be quiet about it, we say "If you are thinking of suicide, you might be crazy or you might be rational. Let's talk about it."?
There is an important distinction I want to make here. I think suicide can seem like a logical response to a very stressful situation, but it is predicated on the faulty premise that the horrible situation you are in will never change in the future. Things feel hopeless and if they actually were, then it would make sense, but that is rarely the case. I think telling someone who is suicidal that they are crazy is just stupid though.
Maybe in the future, I could change my mind and not be so bothered by the fact that bees make honey. The problem though is, that's a MAYBE, not a certainty.
The very possibility is what makes the action irrational in my mind. (because the suicide is final when the affliction is not)
So, if we really do believe in self ownership, then yes I would have to say that the person committing suicide because bees make honey has a right to do so. You have the right to try to talk him out of it, but I don't think you have the right to force him to not do it. Besides, if someone gets suicidally upset over the fact that bees make honey, what kind of a life do you honestly think that person could have anyway?
We won't know if they're dead. Like I said though, I'm not certain. If someone has a caring individual in their life, can they commit suicide? If they have any empathy at all I don't think so. I'm just glad I don't decide these things
-
Where does it specifically say you have the right to counsel whether you can pay or not?
Pick a dictionary, I think they all have the same definition for it. This is why I don't think that the word freedom is interchangeable with rights and why I think it takes more than 30 seconds to figure out what they are.
-
Right to counsel. You have a right to life and the ability to defend it. When the attacker is a 300lb mad man you turn to Samuel Colt. When it's a crazed bureaucratic you hire a lawyer. Now... Payment for such is a different issue entirely. You have the right to an attorney but not for free. In a stateless society the looser would pay all legal costs. The fact that in today's society it's been perverted doesn't change what is and isn't a right. A right can not initiate force or it's not a right.
The right to counsel specifically means regardless of whether you can pay or not. Seems to me you are just using the word right with the meaning of freedom. Why not just use that word instead and say you are free to hire a lawyer? Or say you are free to live? Do you just prefer the word right or is there additional meaning that distinguishes it from freedom?
-
Right: The power of free and unencumbered action that is a permanent and essential attribute of all humans.
I just realized that is the definition of freedom lol.
It's not hard. That definition took about 30 seconds for me to come up with and I really like it. If you start with the idea of self ownership leading to property rights then you need to identify both property and rights. Your body is your property and the right is the ability to do the things you do without being interfered with.
Your definition is incomplete, it doesn't cover contractual rights. (or obligations/requirements of the government, such as providing a lawyer or paying legal expenses if you can't get one yourself as in the right to counsel)
Lets go back to the "I have a right to an education" statement. Yes, you do. I can't go to Stef and say "Hey, you've learned enough - stop!". Now, I have a right to work, or gain the fruits of the labor of my body and mind, so I can say "Hey Stef, I'll teach you but it'll cost a billion trillion dollars." If he forces me to teach him without paying or defrauds me by saying he'll pay later then he's initiated force against me. That is the ultimate litmus test of what a right is and is not. If it involves the initiation of force against someone then it's not a right.
You know that's not what people mean when they say that they have a right to an education or a right to a job. They mean that they should have it, and not having it is a violation of their right. How can you say that they are wrong? (to be clear they are saying the government has an obligation to provide it)
May I try?
A "right" is: a privilege to carry out the defined certain action (or set of actions) with legal sanction, and/or the assurance that certain defined things will be protected by enforcement to the degree specified, as assigned by the person or group with the greatest power amongst a specific group or in a specific geographic area.
Dead on imo. The only problem then is that its existence is predicated on the government and legal system. There's no basis for it in material reality, it's just a fiction created in order to control the behavior of individuals.
-
For these reasons, I would say that ethics is a matter distinct from enforceability, although it is a related concept. What would your response be to this argumentation?
You are misunderstanding what he means by enforcement. You are thinking of enforcement of ethics, and Stefan is talking about enforcement of preferences. Rape is an enforcement of personal preference, so is self-defense, which makes them moral considerations. Aesthetic preferences are not enforced, so like you said they have nothing to do with morality. I'd recommend reading the section that you quoted again, starting on page 48.
You posting this is an exercise is self-ownership. You can't have self-ownership and not have morality, since it's basically an observation of the limits of coexisting self-owned individuals.
Nice try man but he's a determinist. You can't win. He can counter this by saying that he didn't choose to post anything, it was just a causal product of his environment and history lol. The universe made me do it! Aaagh help me.... the atoms keep moving...
-
Okay, then a right would be " A principle used to determine who's right in a conflict"
So If I say I have a right to own a gun, I'm saying I have a principle to own a gun? And if I say that my rights are being taken away, I mean my principles are being taken away? That doesn't make sense to me. What is a right to a job or a right to a free education?
People don't talk about rights as if they are principles. If they were, why wouldn't we just call them that like we do with the NAP?
-
Then I don't know what it is that you're asking. (Also, what things are used for is at times the essential chracteristic that defines them, so if you want to argue that what something is used for can never be a definition (or part of the definition) of the thing itself then you're incorrect.)
Using a word in it's own definition is unhelpful. It's like if I ask what a hose is and you say, "A hose is what I use to water my lawn". That would be an explanation of its function but not its properties. In this example you could be talking about a watering can just as easily since it can also be used to water your lawn. If instead you said "A flexible tube" then I would understand the nature of what a hose actually is. (If you said "A flexible tube used to convey water" then I would have both its function and its properties in the same definition)
-
How about this: If there's a conflict between 2 or more people the right tells you who's right. (Including who's right to use force if necessary, if the other person doesn't accept that)
That's not a definition of what exactly a right is, it's an explanation of what it's used for.
-
The only thing I can surmise at this point is that people in their 40s and 50s are so set in their beliefs over the years that they simply can't or won't open their minds up to other possibilities. I can accept people telling me that they understand my philosophy but disagree with it. But I can't deal with the condescending lectures about the immoral consequences of voluntary (as opposed to coercive) behavior.
The problem here is that your 'friend' was looking for a circle jerk while you took his invitation to debate seriously. It's duplicitous but maybe if he had apologized in private and said he was scared to discuss those ideas seriously for fear of being labeled by others it would be understandable. Instead, his approach was to be a jackass and try to fog you even more.
I think that's where I stand regarding people comprehending concepts like the NAP. Maybe I'd be more flexible if I were 20 years younger, but at 50 I don't have the time or patience to deal with very close-minded people any longer.
I'm half your age and already sick of it.
-
Trick question! The answer is no and no because morality never existed in material reality but it also will cease to exist as a concept in our minds once we are no longer around. See Kevin's answer for more details!
-
Failure has nothing to teach you. Don’t learn from your mistakes.
There is one and only one bit of useful, reliable information you can safely glean from failure: “that didn’t work”. Which is wonderful, because now you know to consider maybe not doing that any more. But that’s all you get in terms of valuable, actionable, safe information.
It's funny because he contradicts himself even in the opening paragraph.
That's a good catch on your part. You have to ask yourself why he is dedicating an article to helping you learn from your mistake while implying that it's not possible to do so in the very title. My favorite part about this is how efficient you become once you are able to spot these. As soon as I see that contradiction I can dismiss his whole article as rubbish and spend my time more productively elsewhere rather than slog through it and scratch my head in confusion afterwards.
GPL vs. BSD
in Miscellaneous
Posted
Haha touche, valid point for PHP.