Scribit Bas Wijnen dies 29/04/2006 hora 14:22: > > Wrong is not morally reprehensible, which in turn is not morally > > objectionable. > That's a matter of definition. I just gave you mine, and for that > your statement is obviously not true.
You can see slightly different meanings to some words than me, but that doesn't make something morally objectionable something morally reprehensible. Everyone cannot have it's own version of the dictionary... It is a problem of protocol. If two systems want to communicate, they have to agree on a protocol for that. Language is just a protocol between humans. > The law is an attempt to write down morals. That's delusional, at best. Laws have to do with protecting freedoms. To do that, most laws have to limit other freedoms, because many freedoms are just incompatible (like the freedom to kill and the freedom to live, for example). I quote a law manual of mine (loosely translated from French): ``Primary function of law rule is to organise the society by a tissue of juridical relationships wich possibly can superpose themselves with other social relationships, moral or religion for example.'' > > That should be made clear (and quite a few among us could confirm > > that it is the way they see design principles). And then design > > principles should be written. > Yes, they should. And they are. :-) Marcus wrote an e-mail to this > list some time ago describing them. We should really stop thinking that a lost email in a mailing-list archive can be substituted to documentation. Hopefully the use of the Wiki could help us there. Documentally, Nowhere man -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
