Linux-Advocacy Digest #893, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: How did Tux the Penguin come about? (David Dorward)
Re: businesses are psychopaths ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Computer and memory ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
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. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Qt goes GPL (abraxas)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Qt goes GPL (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Computer and memory (abraxas)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (Eric Remy)
Re: Qt goes GPL (abraxas)
Re: businesses are psychopaths (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:04:28 -0300
[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]...
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > > They don't. And anyone can clone it. And if they sue the cloner,
> > > > > > as long as the cloner didn't do anything illegal, the cloner will
> > > > > > win. Big deal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unless the cloner does not have enough money to fight back. Then
> the
> > > one
> > > > > who is in the right would lose and possibly be made destitute in the
> > > > > process.
> > > >
> > > > Well, that is hardly TT's fault, is it?
> > > > By the same token, anyone else could sue you for any reason and
> > > > you would become just as destitute. If so, why single out TT?
> > >
> > > Because it is their intentions that are the subject of fear,
> uncertantity,
> > > and doubt in this discussion. How many people would have the personal
> > > finances to combat in court a company like Trolltech? If Trolltech
> brought
> > > a suit that they coud not win against an individual of even a groups of
> > > individuals and keep the issues tied up in court long enough to drain
> their
> > > opponents resources, it would be Trolltech's fault. That is the one of
> the
> > > claws of FUD that makes people hesitent to produce a drop in replacement
> for
> > > Qt.
> >
> > So, you are blaming TT for something they have not done yet? That's not
> > fair.
>
> Are you claiming that Trolltech has not employed FUD?
Indeed I do. You say that they threatened and FUD'd. I say they just
replied honestly to what they were asked.
> > > Of couse this many soon all become a moot point with the release of
> Qt/Unix
> > > 2.2 under teh GPL. Although this message does reinforces point of
> > > centention. A possible true reason for KDE to have used Qt instead of
> > > somethine else, since Matthias Ettrich, founder of the KDE project is a
> > > Trolltech employee.
> >
> > What is a possible reason?
>
> Conflict of interest?
Are you saying that Matthias, in 1996, knew that in 1998 TT, which
in 1996 consisted of 3 guys in a tiny office in Norway, would hire
him, and that made him choose Qt for KDE?
That is:
a) Your guess, based on nothing.
b) Grossly unfair to both Matthias and TT
You are saying that he sold himself, and based on nothing.
Now, that is terribly unfair, IMHO. In fact, I'd say it
is way more FUD than whatever TT has done, since you are
effectively saying "KDE was founded by a guy who did it
to get money from TT". That's downright insulting.
> > > From http://www.trolltech.com/company/announce/gpl.html
> >
> > [snip announcement, Qt is now under the GPL, anyone can follow
> > the link for details]
>
> Have you forgotten about the people who have usenet access but do not have
> internet access?
No, they have your post. I saw no reason to repeat. And besides, it
says not much beyond "Qt is now under the GPL".
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How did Tux the Penguin come about?
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 18:55:29 +0100
Adam Shapira wrote:
>
> I was wondering if anyone can tell me how Tux, the Linux
> Penguin, came about ... and how this penguin became the
> mascot of the Linux OS.
The FAQ at Linux.org explains. Rather then quote the lot I'll leave a
link: http://www.linux.org/info/penguin.html
--
David Dorward
http://www.dorward.co.uk/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: 4 Sep 2000 18:07:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> The difference in behaviour between a psychopath with a long view
>> >> and a normal person is minimal.
>> >
>> >Criminal psychopaths
>>
>> Changing the subject again are we?
>If you think that being a criminal isn't fully consistent with
>taking a "long view" then you need your head examined.
Changing the subject again are we?
What did your quote say, 20+% of those in prison are psychopaths?
The vast majority of people in prison ended up there because they
lacked a long view.
Unless they really thought that getting their rear-door reamed was a
fair trade for 3 meals a day.
Given that a large number of non-psychopaths are criminals and that
a lot of criminal psychopaths end up in prison the equality, or even
near equality of psychopaths with a long view with criminal psychopaths
and the definative difference between psychopaths with a long view
and normal people is a long way from being shown.
>Ever heard
>of "organized crime"? The FBI used (?) to say it doesn't exist ...
Yes, the FBI.
>> >The only good corporations are cooperatives
>>
>> And your proof of this is? Oh yes, by your definition of what
>> a "good" corporation is combined with anecdotal evidence.
>By the accepted definition of what psychopathy is and the evidence
>available to me.
How many corporations have you done an in depth study of? Or read
in depth studies of?
>> I suggest that you consider that many people who are happy with their
>> lot in life are not brainwashed but rather don't care enough about
>> what you percieve as grave injustices to let it get in the way
>> of being generally happy.
>
>IOW, they're selfish or deeply self-deluded.
No, they are happy with their lives. You see a grave injustice affecting
them, they see something that isn't that big of a deal.
[]
>> Are they still being exploited? No doubt, but if the exploitee doesn't
>> care much and is living a decent life ...
>Then it still matters because there are side-effects like unsustainable
>exploitation of the environment.
Changing the subject again.
[]
>If people did all become like Spock and remained self-interested
>then civilization would collapse. But I don't think that would
>happen, I think people would just admit that they aren't motivated
>by self-interest once their fundamental needs are met.
What other rational motivation is there?
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:06:06 -0400
abraxas wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > abraxas wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Perhaps you should be writing your government then.
> >> >
> >> > It's not America's fault your country(ies) are behind
> >> > in technology.
> >> >
> >>
> >> There goes chad again, talking out of his ass. This actually has nothing
> >> to do with being 'behind in technology', it has to do with there being no
> >> one common communications tariff methodology.
> >>
> >> To all: Chad actually knows next to nothing about computers, and exactly
> >> nothing about the way countries other than the united states work. Hes
> >> probably best ignored.
> >
> > Wrong. Britain COULD have just as vibrant a memory-production industry
> > as the US....IF THEY DESIRED to do so.
> >
>
> Ummm...how exactly does that make me wrong? We're agreeing, tard.
>
Britain is behind in technlogoy because THEY CHOOSE TO BE BEHIND in
technology.
> -----yttrx
--
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: <[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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:00:37 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Donovan Rebbechi escribió:
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:10:05 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >opponents resources, it would be Trolltech's fault. That is the one of
the
> > >claws of FUD that makes people hesitent to produce a drop in
replacement for
> > >Qt.
> >
> > The only thing preventing anyone from writing a drop-in replacement is
> > lack of interest.
> >
> > >If it is a fact that the harmony project has died from lack of interest
what
> > >has caused that lack of interest? Was it because of satisfaction with
Qt?
> > >Was it the technical difficulty of the project? Or, was it the FUD
from
> > >Trolltech?
> >
> > To answer this question, we need to ask what the goal of the Harmony
> > project was. The goal was to produce a free QT version. At the time
> > Harmony was founded, Qt did not satisfy the OpenSource definition, and
> > was regarded as non-free. The QPL satisfied the OpenSource definition,
> > and RMS, Redhat, and the Harmony project, and most of the free software
> > community were in agreement that QT really was free. The immediate
> > consequence ( and FYI, the Harmony project was abandoned shortly after
> > the QPL announcement ) was that Troll Tech had, by virtue of changing
> > their licensed, addressed the problem that the Harmony project was
founded
> > to solve.
> >
> > >Of couse this many soon all become a moot point with the release of
Qt/Unix
> > >2.2 under teh GPL. Although this message does reinforces point of
> > >centention. A possible true reason for KDE to have used Qt instead of
> > >somethine else, since Matthias Ettrich, founder of the KDE project is a
> > >Trolltech employee.
> >
> > Well this would only make sense if TT hired him before he founded KDE.
>
> Which they didn't. IIRC they hired him around the date of KDE 1.0, which
> was about 2 years later.
Reguardless of the timing, there is an apparent conflict of interest. Now
try to argue that it is not possible that by selecting Qt, by standing by
the choice in spite of public reactions, by making Qt a relativly well known
library by it use in KDE, that he didn't ingratiate himself with Trolltech
to the point that they hired. Also try to argue that the his being hired
could not be viewed as an attempt to cement the connection between KDE and
Qt so that KDE would not jump ship and use another library.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:30:05 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Donovan Rebbechi escribió:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:10:05 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > >opponents resources, it would be Trolltech's fault. That is the one of
> the
> > > >claws of FUD that makes people hesitent to produce a drop in
> replacement for
> > > >Qt.
> > >
> > > The only thing preventing anyone from writing a drop-in replacement is
> > > lack of interest.
> > >
> > > >If it is a fact that the harmony project has died from lack of interest
> what
> > > >has caused that lack of interest? Was it because of satisfaction with
> Qt?
> > > >Was it the technical difficulty of the project? Or, was it the FUD
> from
> > > >Trolltech?
> > >
> > > To answer this question, we need to ask what the goal of the Harmony
> > > project was. The goal was to produce a free QT version. At the time
> > > Harmony was founded, Qt did not satisfy the OpenSource definition, and
> > > was regarded as non-free. The QPL satisfied the OpenSource definition,
> > > and RMS, Redhat, and the Harmony project, and most of the free software
> > > community were in agreement that QT really was free. The immediate
> > > consequence ( and FYI, the Harmony project was abandoned shortly after
> > > the QPL announcement ) was that Troll Tech had, by virtue of changing
> > > their licensed, addressed the problem that the Harmony project was
> founded
> > > to solve.
> > >
> > > >Of couse this many soon all become a moot point with the release of
> Qt/Unix
> > > >2.2 under teh GPL. Although this message does reinforces point of
> > > >centention. A possible true reason for KDE to have used Qt instead of
> > > >somethine else, since Matthias Ettrich, founder of the KDE project is a
> > > >Trolltech employee.
> > >
> > > Well this would only make sense if TT hired him before he founded KDE.
> >
> > Which they didn't. IIRC they hired him around the date of KDE 1.0, which
> > was about 2 years later.
>
> Reguardless of the timing, there is an apparent conflict of interest.
Uh? I'm afraid you gonna have to explain that a lot.
> Now try to argue that it is not possible that by selecting Qt, by standing by
> the choice in spite of public reactions, by making Qt a relativly well known
> library by it use in KDE, that he didn't ingratiate himself with Trolltech
> to the point that they hired.
Of course I will not argue that. However, I must tell you Matthias is
one heck of a programmer. But yes, I am sure it was his involvment
with KDE that made TT aware of him. Why is that a problem?
> Also try to argue that the his being hired
> could not be viewed as an attempt to cement the connection between KDE and
> Qt so that KDE would not jump ship and use another library.
If jumping libraries was Matthias'decision, what you say could make
SOME sense. KDE is pretty much not a dictatorship. Dropping Qt is
practically impossible. There are about 2 million lines of code
that would have to be almost rewritten. It just won't happen.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:27:18 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > > [snip announcement, Qt is now under the GPL, anyone can follow
> > > the link for details]
> >
> > Have you forgotten about the people who have usenet access but do not
have
> > internet access?
>
> No, they have your post. I saw no reason to repeat. And besides, it
> says not much beyond "Qt is now under the GPL".
Your exclusion of the quote is not a problem, in fact it was appropriate to
exclude it from your reply. It was your comment of "anyone can follow the
link for details" that appears to be a chatisement for my taking into
consideration the needs of those without access to the "web site".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Qt goes GPL
Date: 4 Sep 2000 18:36:11 GMT
> How many CDE users do you know?
Personally? A couple dozen.
That I know of? Thousands.
> Because that was the standard
> until right now.
And thank god its changed. I hate CDE.
Now dont get me wrong, this is not to say that I particularly dislike KDE,
as a matter of fact, ive been downloading snapshots two and three times
weekly just to see whats up. I do recognize the commercial value of KDE,
as well as that of GNOME, and I find them both a little too buggy to use
either one consistently.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:47:26 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > > > [snip announcement, Qt is now under the GPL, anyone can follow
> > > > the link for details]
> > >
> > > Have you forgotten about the people who have usenet access but do not
> have
> > > internet access?
> >
> > No, they have your post. I saw no reason to repeat. And besides, it
> > says not much beyond "Qt is now under the GPL".
>
> Your exclusion of the quote is not a problem, in fact it was appropriate to
> exclude it from your reply. It was your comment of "anyone can follow the
> link for details" that appears to be a chatisement for my taking into
> consideration the needs of those without access to the "web site".
No, if I wanted to chastise you, you would not have to look for
something
so subtle ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Qt goes GPL
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:49:22 -0300
abraxas escribió:
>
> > How many CDE users do you know?
>
> Personally? A couple dozen.
>
> That I know of? Thousands.
Ok, now, how many users of KDE and GNOME do you know?
> > Because that was the standard
> > until right now.
>
> And thank god its changed. I hate CDE.
Amen! ;-)
> Now dont get me wrong, this is not to say that I particularly dislike KDE,
> as a matter of fact, ive been downloading snapshots two and three times
> weekly just to see whats up. I do recognize the commercial value of KDE,
> as well as that of GNOME, and I find them both a little too buggy to use
> either one consistently.
I find KDE 1.1.2 way less buggy than the CDE that came with
Solaris 7, but that's maybe my bias. Or perhaps, it's not the
buggyness itself, but the general featurelessness of CDE :-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 4 Sep 2000 18:42:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > abraxas wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > Perhaps you should be writing your government then.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's not America's fault your country(ies) are behind
>> >> > in technology.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> There goes chad again, talking out of his ass. This actually has nothing
>> >> to do with being 'behind in technology', it has to do with there being no
>> >> one common communications tariff methodology.
>> >>
>> >> To all: Chad actually knows next to nothing about computers, and exactly
>> >> nothing about the way countries other than the united states work. Hes
>> >> probably best ignored.
>> >
>> > Wrong. Britain COULD have just as vibrant a memory-production industry
>> > as the US....IF THEY DESIRED to do so.
>> >
>>
>> Ummm...how exactly does that make me wrong? We're agreeing, tard.
>>
>
> Britain is behind in technlogoy because THEY CHOOSE TO BE BEHIND in
> technology.
>
The satellite-telecom industry would disagree.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Eric Remy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:43:48 -0400
In article <8p0n2f$2ofh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(abraxas) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Eric Remy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <8oou48$1917$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> (abraxas) wrote:
>>
>>>You're wrong, Netscape doesnt ever crash systems running X. It has
>>>never,
>>>ever
>>>happened to me, and it has never, ever happened to anyone I know, with
>>>any
>>>version of netscape and any version of XFree, accelleratedX and metroX.
>>>You are
>>>completely incorrect.
>>
>> No, he's not. You can now say you've met someone that this has happened
>> to. I've had Netscape crash X+SunOS multiple times.
>
>I dont think so.
Fine. You found me out: I'm just a lying sack of *(^&
Live in your world if you want. Doesn't change the fact I watched it
happen.
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"I don't like (quantum mechanics), | How many errors can
and I'm sorry I ever had anything | you find in my X-Face?
to do with it."- Erwin Schrodinger |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Qt goes GPL
Date: 4 Sep 2000 18:50:10 GMT
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > How many CDE users do you know?
>>
>> Personally? A couple dozen.
>>
>> That I know of? Thousands.
>
> Ok, now, how many users of KDE and GNOME do you know?
>
Personally, a couple dozen. That I know of, probably tens of thousands.
>> Now dont get me wrong, this is not to say that I particularly dislike KDE,
>> as a matter of fact, ive been downloading snapshots two and three times
>> weekly just to see whats up. I do recognize the commercial value of KDE,
>> as well as that of GNOME, and I find them both a little too buggy to use
>> either one consistently.
>
> I find KDE 1.1.2 way less buggy than the CDE that came with
> Solaris 7, but that's maybe my bias.
Actually, I think that KDE 1.1.2 is very stable. The main reason I switched
back to windowmaker was because I couldnt stand Konsole; it just never could
get the hang of vt100...Now I understand that this is a lame reason to stop
using KDE, but on the other hand if im not going to use everything that
comes with it, I may as well just install the libs and run kde apps inside
other windowmanagers.
On another note; why not simply add gtk+ functionality to KDE? I realize
that this would likely be a large undertaking, but it is possible that if
it happens NOW, kde will be in a much better situation in 12 months.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:53:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>There is something quite bizarre about this picture. Most people
>try to behave in a selfless manner and, failing that, rationalize
>their selfish actions as selfless.
Is that the way you see it? Sounds pretty unfalsifiable to me. Every
action that everybody takes, you can just retroactively apply whatever
vaguery you want as selfish/selfless, and come to your ready-made
conclusion. Its a false dichotomy.
>Take Libertarians for example,
>who argue that depriving people of their liberties, human rights
>and even possessions is actually good for them (the "even the poor
>end up benefiting from the free market" arguement) or Jingoist
>propaganda where we will massacre people For Their Own Good.
Don't paint all libertarians with the broad strokes of the objectivists.
>So when normal, selfless, people start rationalizing their selfless
>actions as selfish, there is something pretty fucked up with that
>picture.
Really? And how many millions of years do you figure its been this
fucked up?
>If I needed any more proof that our societies worship and
>promote psychopathic traits then this would do it. The suggestion
>(by Dale) that psychopaths might be okay only adds another ton of
>evidence for this same thesis.
If your thesis is that not a one of us have a clue what's going on, than
your going to find all the evidence you need. That's like looking for a
dead body because you heard a thump.
>Instead of saying "Everyone's a psychopath at heart if you just
>take away their irrational emotions ..." why don't you just say
>"Most people are NOT AT ALL psychopaths ..."?
Because it wouldn't be true. Not that I ever said that first thing; I
wouldn't have included the word 'irrational', as I don't believe anyone
has the ability to second-guess someone else's emotions.
>Note: humans are programmed by selfish genes to act in a selfless
>manner (that this takes the form of emotions that compel us to
>act in this manner is irrelevant) and thus we could not possibly
>be anything but selfless.
Or anything but selfish. Whichever you want to call it.
Evolution doesn't make judgement calls, and referring to natural
selection of genes as 'a selfish gene' was a prosaic bit of terminology
by Richard Dawkins, not a metaphorical statement of morality. I feared
when I first read it that, for all his might intellect, his well-known
arrogance would cause just this kind of problem. He knows, probably as
much as anyone on the planet, that using the term 'selfish' in
consideration of evolution and natural selection is entirely
meaningless. He would no doubt insist that since people should know
that the concept of a 'selfish gene' is meaningless, they should be able
to understand the actual concept he was describing, which is simply
natural selection of individual genes examined separately from the
evolution of species themselves. Dawkins would also be the first to
point out, for instance, that the term 'species' is likewise
meaningless, from a genetic perspective.
Don't let the terminology fool you. Selfish genes don't have anything
to do with selfishness, nor does selflessness have anything to do with
'programming', to speak of. Evolution and humans are only 'selfless' in
retrospect.
"Give a monkey a brain, and he'll swear he's the center of the
universe."
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
