Linux-Advocacy Digest #574, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:37:44 -0400
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> >Why would you even want a LoseModem? It's a cpu-hog.
> >
>
> It may be a crap waste of cpu resources but most PC's bought for home use
> currently include a modem and most of these are winmodems. It looks better
I think that support for Losemodems should be highly...what's that
word... denigrated(?) in the documentation as being minimal support
provided for demonstration purposes only until you go out and get
a real modem....they're quite cheap if you buy them second-hand.
> for someone who has just bought a machine and gets hold of a copy of linux
> if all of their current hardware is supported and gives them no excuse for
> blaming the operating system when they upgrade and find they can no longer
> use their modem. Support for these modems can have other advantages - linux
> drivers can do more than the windows ones and may be able to use these
> modems as a telephone exchange for example, routing calls to any PC on the
> network with a soundcard (try doing this under windoze). This seems to be
> already in the process of being coded (www.linmodems.org).
I can see that, but .. .in some way, we shouldn't call that modem
support, as it isn't being used for that purpose... maybe telephonic
sound device support.
>
> Another thing that I often wonder is why does linux (also 'Arachne' DOS
> browser, apple mac and most if not all non-babybill based machines) need to
> have things like the DNS settings manually entered. Perhaps the teams behind
> the linux ppp code could find a way to reverse-engineer the windblows ppp
> code and work out how they do this automatically (and share the info with
> apple and arachne labs).
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:51:28 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> [...]
> >> Screw KDE. Its a commercial development project. They're trying to
> >> leverage free software for their own private gain; GNOME rules. Any
> >> ideas KDE can come up with, GNOME can replicate. That's not FUD, that's
> >> the god's honest truth.
> >
> >I don't get it. Do you know the address of KDE corp. by chance? ;-)
>
> <G> No, I couldn't find it. ;-)
Ok, so, I assukme now you know that what you said was not "the god's
honest truth." but just more uninformed ranting? Apologize, please.
> I was mislead by the rhetoric, as I've said. I'm still not a fan of
> KDE, but don't see anything wrong with an alternative to GNOME, either.
> I'd just wish you understood the literary aspects of software enough to
> know that requiring QT is counter-productive, possibly in the extreme.
You lack the software designing and development expertise to judge
the merits of technical decisions regarding software design and
development, IMO.
> [...]
> >The investors that pay me don't pay me to code, they pay me to be the
> >director of the technical department of a local office of a linux
> >distribution (http://www.conectiva.com.ar/staff.php3).
> >
> >And in fact, I have not coded much since they started paying me.
> >
> >Most of the code I have released was coded on my own time.
>
> Thanks for clarifying that, certainly.
So, am I not a whore as you said I was? Wouldn't it be nice
of you to apologize for calling me that instead of deleting it?
> The problem, of course, is not with you, but with the investors, that
> is my point.
What problem do you have with the investors in my company?
> If they are trying to build a product they can give away and make money
> on some secondary 'market', as is the case with most GPL projects, that
> is fine. If they are attempting to monopolize the 'market' for Linux
> GUIs, it is not fine.
The company I work for cares very little about GUIs,
much less about monoplizing the GUIs.
> If the former is true, however, I don't see why
> they would be satisfied basing their production on a library that
> limits the distribution of their software.
The investors that pay my sallary (which are the ones you started
referring to, so don't say I'm deviating) don't do that, at all.
> Just who are these investors (generally), and how are they expecting to
> make a return on their investment?
One of them is Intel, through a investment fund.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:46:05 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:18:42 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>>
>>> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>> >On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:05:04 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> >>Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[deletia]
>>> I was under the impression that KDE was a directly commercial venture
>>> which seeks to make money on distributing their developments. I don't
>>> consider that an inherently unethical act, but I do question why it is
>>> considered competitive with GNOMES purely open approach.
>>
>>What gave you such a weird impression?
...perhaps Miguel's own statements regarding why he started
the whole thing.
GNOME was a reaction to the licence of libqt. It's basically
"KDE without the commercial library underneath". There are
other personal difference beyond that but that was the initial
motivation.
>
>The FSF rhetoric, probably, or a media report of the same. This is an
>old post you're responding to, though. I recalled more of the details
>concerning QT and the non-commercial nature of KDE while reconsidering
>the matter.
[deletia]
QT is the sticky point. KDE is the friendly face on top of
corporate property.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:55:54 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:52:36 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:57:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [deletia]
> >> >> > > Y9ou said something like that I disrespected the linux user base, or
> >> >> > > some such. Can't tell, because you sniped it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why it that a problem? Can't you read back the thread?
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope, lame expires.
> >> >
> >> >Setup your own server with decent expires.
> >>
> >> Quite. It's not like setting up leafnode is exactly rocket science...
> >
> >Shut up, Jedi, this is grownup talk.
>
> Ironically enough, you deleted anything that could be construed
> as anything else.
Believe it or not, I had not deleted anything in the message you are
replying to, however, you did delete in the [deletia] part.
Now, instead: [snip]
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:57:37 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:18:42 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >>>
> >>> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>> >On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:05:04 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >>> >>Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [deletia]
> >>> I was under the impression that KDE was a directly commercial venture
> >>> which seeks to make money on distributing their developments. I don't
> >>> consider that an inherently unethical act, but I do question why it is
> >>> considered competitive with GNOMES purely open approach.
> >>
> >>What gave you such a weird impression?
>
> ...perhaps Miguel's own statements regarding why he started
> the whole thing.
>
> GNOME was a reaction to the licence of libqt. It's basically
> "KDE without the commercial library underneath". There are
> other personal difference beyond that but that was the initial
> motivation.
And still, that doesn't say anything close to "KDE is a directly
commercial venture".
[snip]
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:51:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Chad Irby;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> >> They've been under investigation, essentially, since the late 1980s.
> >> They've had a monopoly based on pre-load per-processor agreements and
> >> such since the mid-80s, at the latest.
> >
> >Yup. And they didn't get into any real trouble until the mid 1990s.
> >What does that tell you?
>
> That anti-trust enforcement is criminally lax?
Well, yes. The original case against Microsoft was supposed to be by
the FTC, but the guy in charge of antitrust cases was a Reagan appointee
who claimed, proudly, that there wasn't going to be any antitrust
prosecution under his watch.
> >> >Other companies that have been in trouble for similar tactics:
> >> >
> >> >Coca-Cola (which gets nailed from time to time for anticompetitive
> >> >practices.)
> >>
> >> To prevent them from having a monopoly.
> >
> >Nope. To keep them from using their monopoly position in many areas to
> >knock other companies out of business.
>
> They don't have a monopoly position. They just have a substantial
> market share. But without the ability to use it predatorially, they
> aren't a monopoly.
A company doesn't have to have an overall monopoly to have a monopoly in
certain areas or markets. Coca-Cola certainly has monopoly ower in many
areas, and enough market power overall to use it predatorially, as you
put it. And they still get in trouble for it from time to time.
> >> Everyone knows you can get Pepsi at almost as many places.
> >
> >Mostly because, back in the 1970s and 1980s, Coca-Cola got slapped
> >around by the FTC for abusing their monopoly.
>
> No, for attempting to monopolize, or perhaps for monopolizing, either
> way, I assume they don't do it any more. But they still have a large
> market share.
And in many areas, they have a monopoly. There are large areas of the
US where Coke is the only major soft drink you can get.
> >> from the Microsoft case.
> >>
> >> I fail to see why a laundry list of companies who've had anti-trust
> >> trials is supposed to support the idea that "having a monopoly is
> >> illegal" is a radical statement.
> >
> >...and you still haven't come up with one single example where a company
> >with an existing monopoly got nailed by the Feds for just having a
> >monopoly.
>
> They all do.
Once again. Individual companies, please. And not Microsoft: they got
into trouble for doing a lot of stuff other than just "having" a
monopoly, and that was shown in the verdict.
> Microsoft did; just *having* the pre-load monopoly earned
> them a conviction under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Attempting to
> monopolize the browser market, as well, got them another. Finally, a
> Section 1 violation was determined for the tying.
>
> From the Conclusions of Law:
> See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966) ("The
> offense of monopoly power under § 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements:
> (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
> willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from
> growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business
> acumen, or historic accident.")
>
> I'm not sure if "Grinnell Corp" meets your criteria (though I still
> don't understand the criteria), but it seems clear (from this quote and
> the accompanying discussion) that the possession of monopoly power
> (substantial market share + capability of using it predatorially)
You keep trying this, and it still doesn't work. You keep leaving out
the (2) from the Sherman Act.
> is illegal if it was willfully acquired or maintained. Nothing about
> having to actually *use* it; merely willful acquisition or maintenance.
Re-read (2) in your quote from the Sherman Act. It's right there.
Until you understand that the Sherman Act has TWO parts, instead of the
one you keep quoting and mushing in with two, you'll never get it.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:50:01 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:09:01 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:10:05 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> >
>> >> This is the big question. With all of the labor potential the
>> >> KDE project seems to have, why not make a clean break to a
>> >> core library that is beyond reproach?
>> >
>> >You are liberal at spending the effort of others. Join [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Not nearly as much as you are.
>>
>> You want others to fix your poo.
>
>Where have I asked anyone to fix something for me? Put up or apologize.
You are whining about my reluctance to waste my labors
fixing the poor design decisions of others. KDE is not
my poo to fix.
Plus there are legal complications.
[deletia]
Besides, it's the core development team that has to eventually
commit to an alternative library. Even a feature complete
version of Harmony won't achieve that.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:55:28 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Thank you. But there is a subtle distinction, apparently, between
> "having monopoly power" and "monopolizing". Is it having monopoly power
> that makes a company "a monopoly", or using monopoly power?
>
> According to precedent, the two things necessary are: 1) you have
> monopoly power, 2) you acquired or maintained it willfully.
...in a fashion other than by competitive business means. You keep
leaving that part out, for some reason.
> Using it is not a requirement.
But acquioring it through noncommpetitive means *is*, and you keep
glossing over it.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:04:18 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:09:01 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:10:05 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >> >
> >> >> This is the big question. With all of the labor potential the
> >> >> KDE project seems to have, why not make a clean break to a
> >> >> core library that is beyond reproach?
> >> >
> >> >You are liberal at spending the effort of others. Join [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> Not nearly as much as you are.
> >>
> >> You want others to fix your poo.
> >
> >Where have I asked anyone to fix something for me? Put up or apologize.
>
> You are whining about my reluctance to waste my labors
> fixing the poor design decisions of others. KDE is not
> my poo to fix.
You tell me to fix it. I tell you: fix it yourself. If that's asking you
to fix my "poo", then so be it.
> Plus there are legal complications.
Such as? Fraudulent impersonation of a programmer?
> [deletia]
>
> Besides, it's the core development team that has to eventually
> commit to an alternative library. Even a feature complete
> version of Harmony won't achieve that.
Show us the library, we may show you commitment. Should we not
show you commitment, I'm sure you can find your way through to
make a huge /. article about it.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:59:26 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:16:10 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:01:59 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Bob Hauck escribió:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:14:31 GMT, Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Check it out Leon, Oracle ships with default admin passwords, MySQL
>> >> >ships with default passwords.
>> >>
>> >> IIRC, you also can't make MySQL do anything unless you're root on the
>> >> local machine until you set up some passwords.
>> >
>> >Considering that you have to connect to the database to set the
>> >passwords, they better leave you SOME open entry ;-)
>> >
>>
>> An rdbms can use OS based security for such instances.
>> You don't necessarily need a default user account to
>> access a freshly installed or created database.
>
>Sure. MySQL doesn't though, that's why I said that.
>I also believe that OS based users/passwords in a database
>are pretty lame, but that's just MHO.
Why? Don't you trust your OS?
If you don't, why do you think the rdbms is going to be better?
OS based authentication is just one less level of redirection.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:59:35 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Colin R. Day in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> Possible in his opinion, and evaluated from who's perspective? Sorry if
> >> I seem to be begging you to chase your tail. My point is that ethics
> >> are *subtle*, not simplistic.
> >
> >Perhaps, but this does not relieve us of the responsibility of
> >making ethical judgments.
>
> Not always, but it often hampers us from doing so when we have the
> desire, if not the responsibility, as is the case with all historical
> examinations.
It hampers us from making ethical judgments with the definitiveness
of math or physics, but that is part of the context of ethics.
>
>
> [...]
> >> Because they are not sentient creatures, and you can only judge sentient
> >> creatures, within the context of ethics.
> >
> >But you can say that an event was anti-life, and the people responsible
> >for it evil.
>
> You can say whatever you want, that doesn't make it true. First, the
> matter of ethics can determine whether something is "unethical".
> Whether it is "evil" is a matter of morality.
>
How do you distinguish between ethics and morality? I would treat
them pretty much the same.
I saw more below. I take you as saying that ethics is a science and
that an individual's morality is his/her beliefs about ethics. But one
could still speak of a person's ethics in the sense of that person's
ethical beiefs.
>
> Second, as I've already stated, you cannot judge events, only people.
>
> And people responsible for an event might be acting unethically, but
> that doesn't make the event unethical, only the people's actions. In
> casual conversation, of course, this doesn't prevent us from saying
> things like 'the Inquisition was unethical', meaning that people
> responsible for it *may* be considered to have acted unethically.
>
This is close to what I meant. It's just that I don't know the
names of particular inquisitors.
>
> [...]
> >> >Why do I have to able to do something about it?
> >>
> >> Because if you can't do anything about it, you have no context for
> >> making an ethical decision.
> >
> >The context of an ethical decision would be the actor's, not the
> >observer's.
>
> The ethics applied to that context should be considered that of the
> actor's,
not the observer's, you are right. The context, however, must
> be defined by the observers in order to correctly observe.
Could you clarify this?
> But that
> takes us back to the whole "universal ethics" issue. In order for any
> ethical consideration to be valid to begin with, the ethics of the
> actors and the observers must be generally equivalent.
> And throughout
> the whole history of humans, it seems, we have had a generally
> consistent set of ethics. And a lot of unethical people.
>
> >> You can double-check whether someone
> >> *thought* they were acting ethically, but you can't second-guess whether
> >> they *were* acting ethically. If they have an ethical reason to make a
> >> decision, and act in what they believed was an ethical manner, then no
> >> retro-active 'blame' should accrue to them.
> >
> >Not good enough.
>
> Unless you have some specific requirement for retribution, I'm afraid
> that's going to have to be good enough. Otherwise, you're acting
> unethically.
>
I wasn't doing it to punish people, the judgment I sought was
in ethics, not law.
>
> >> The obvious examples of
> >> individuals who were acting unethically in the face of it, Mussolini,
> >> Stalin, the Big 'H', fail on the first count; they did not have an
> >> ethical reason for their decisions to massacre people, so whether they
> >> believed they were acting ethically cannot be used in their defense.
> >
> >But ethical by what ethics?
>
> Yes, that is the question. But I'm afraid you're still too confused
> with "morals", whether the actors thought they were in the right, which
> in my opinion has no direct bearing on whether their actions were
> ethical.
I thought that you were saying this, and that I was questioning that.
> Ethics is the *science*, not the "personal belief" about
> correct social action.
>
> >> On
> >> the other hand, some people, such as Mother Theresa, for instance, did
> >> have an ethical reason for deciding to do what she did. It is clear she
> >> believed she was acting ethically.
> >
> >Sorry, no dice. What if her ethics are wrong?
>
> Not possible; they are not "her" ethics.
What if the ethics underlying her morality is wrong?
> Again, this is why I so
> strongly divorce my consideration of "morality" in these types of
> discussions; it is necessary, and is sufficient, for clearing out all of
> this "who's ethics/ actor's viewpoint" stuff.
>
> The theory of ethics is there is only one set of ethics, but we don't
> have any absolute way of determining what they are. That doesn't mean
> they change from person to person, the way morality does.
>
>
> >> So the fact that she was needlessly
> >> and callously extending the suffering of tens of thousands of people,
> >> and perpetuating misery and poverty among a huge multitude of others,
> >> does not make her "a bad person". Merely a misguided one.
> >
> >And she cultivated her own misguidedness, so she is unethical.
>
> Well, as far as that goes, you are undoubtedly right. But did she
> choose to cultivate her own misguidedness (I'm quite frankly somewhat
> surprised you're going along with the "Mother Theresa was unethical"
> bit; its still something of a counter-intuitive claim to some people),
True, but that may be all the more reason for pushing it. After all, if
Microsoft had only a 1% market share, would we attack it so much
on c.o.l.a.?
>
> or did she merely fail to overcome her misguidedness?
Implicitly, failing to question is still a choice.
> If every
> authority she questioned provided her with no reason to doubt her
> convictions (unlikely, but we must at least pretend it is possible), can
> she be blamed for continuing in her misguided efforts?
>
Probably no authority within the Church would have disagreed.
>
> Just how many years of other people saying "you are being ethical when
> you do that" does it take to ethically and morally convince you that you
> are acting correctly?
>
I would hope that no amount of mere agreement would convince me.
I'd hope to hold out for arguments for or against a position.
>
> Again, I can't help but see this inexorably reduce to the question of
> free will. Did she decide to cultivate her misguidedness? How is that
> possible, given the term "misguidedness"? Did she choose to decide to
> cultivate it? Did she decide to choose to decide to cultivate it?
>
I would suspect that such cultivation is more an act of omisson than
commission.
Colin Day
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
