Linux-Advocacy Digest #663, Volume #33 Tue, 17 Apr 01 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Mathew)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Microsoft gets hard ("David Ehrens")
Linux is for the lazy (Brian Langenberger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 17 Apr 2001 13:44:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:18:11 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 Apr 2001 18:50:14
>>On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:31:11 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Apr 2001 23:41:34
>>>
>>>>>>If you say that implementing the interface is a copyright violation,
>>>>>>the copyright of WHAT is being violated?
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you only now figuring out that 'intellectual property' is an
>>>>>abstraction, and is not actually bound into physical substance?
>>>>
>>>>Each violation of copyright is the violation of the copyright of a
>>>>specific work. What work's copyright is being violated?
>>>
>>>Other than spouting tautologies, was that supposed to mean anything to
>>>me?
>>
>>Yes. What is the work whose copyright was violated in the example
>>now deleted? Simple question.
>
>I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't matter
Then you don't care about what happened, yet you claim it is breaking
the law. That's a position that's unsustainable.
>"What is the work whose copyright was infringed" would be the same
>question as "what is the work which is protected by copyright",
>obviously. Can you sort through your deleted example, now?
Ok, "What is the work whose copyright was infringed?".
>>>They are, strictly speaking. They get a special exemption, essentially.
>>>But you'll notice Stephen King's newest thriller isn't available in a
>>>library, so nobody cares. Buy a new best seller, donate it to a
>>>library, and precisely how are you acting any different the being on
>>>Napster?
>>
>>I am not copying the book. I am not increasing the number
>>of copies of the book in existence.
>
>Copyright is not a metaphysical substance. The total number of books in
>existence is irrelevant. If you are making money on an author's work
>without his permission, you are infringing:
Nonsense. I can make a living giving conferences about King's books.
>>>>You see, your theory is incredibly stupid, because it would
>>>>forbid a bazillion things that are commonly accepted practice
>>>>in the field where copyright has its roots: books. Like, say,
>>>>cliff's notes.
>>>
>>>No, it is your theory that is "stupid", for that very reason; because
>>>you believe my theory would result in these inconsistences, and it
>>>doesn't. At least no any more than the standard theory does (I'm
>>>careful, after all, not to create a theory that makes impossible what I
>>>know to exist.)
>>
>>YEt you claim that donating a book to a library is an analogy to
>>napster. Either you donīt know what donating is, or donīt know
>>what napster does.
>
>I don't consider copyright a metaphysical substance, that is all. I do
>know that the critical PHYSICAL difference between the two is that
>napster works with digital content, which are completely reduplicatable
>without degradation. I am not so misinformed about the Law, however,
>that I think this makes any difference, other than making duplication of
>music (or books in electronic form, or anything else in digital form)
>incredibly cheap, and potentially (much to the chagrin of those who made
>LOTS of money before digital content) so cheap that it cannot sustain a
>profit. If you can't compete with the pirates, then you have to get
>them into court so you can charge royalties: copyright demands that an
>author get a cut. But if there's no money changing hands, or no revenue
>stream for the copier? Then you get the thanks of everyone who
>appreciates your contribution to the development of the sciences and
>useful arts, and no more.
What a load of baloney. Go ahead, make a digital copy of a book and publish
it for free. You will get sued for copyright infringement so fast you won't
have time to read the book.
>No, there's no difference at all between a library and napster. There
>is no mystical importance to "copying" some bit of intellectual
>authorship; that's just a handy hook to use in managing the
>book-keeping.
Yet libraries are legal and napster is not. Gee.
>>>Your theory, in case you're interested, requires the conception of
>>>"copyright" as a metaphysical substance. If you would like me to
>>>explain how, then you should ask questions, and I'll explain it.
>>
>>Iīd rather pinch my eye with a tweezer.
>
>Well, if you haven't started sorting things out by now, and getting a
>better grip on "copyright", then I suggest you do that, instead, because
>you obviously aren't up to the more intellectual pursuit.
Someone who believes libraries are the same as napster can not educate
a sleeping possum about copyright.
>>>>>>>>Are you saying they would sue over an API copyright?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, it is not API copyright, though the difference is amazingly subtle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Or the difference is only in your mind? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Your ability to grasp abstractions is simply staggering, Roberto.
>>>>
>>>>Whoa, my ability to grasp abstractions is "so surprisingly impressive
>>>>as to stun or overwhelm" you? Thanks! I am sure yours will be just
>>>>as good if you study at nights!
>>>
>>>Maybe you should look up the word "sarcasm", you would understand how
>>>thoroughly you just got flamed.
>>
>>Perhaps you should notice the concept of "a reply in kind".
>
>Yes, but I fail to see what it has to do with this case: my reply was
>funny, and yours was not.
Well, apparently sense of humour is not a universal trait.
>>>>> In
>>>>>case you weren't aware, 'API', 'copyright', and 'intellectual property'
>>>>>are all also entirely mental concepts. So when someone suggests there's
>>>>>a difference between two things that you can't see, it's rather insipid
>>>>>to proclaim it isn't there because you can't see it.
>>>>
>>>>Well, let's see. you have a very flimsy grasp on anything software
>>>>related,
>>>
>>>No, I'm sorry, I did not say that.
>>
>>I am saying that.
>
>Well, Duh.
If you knew *I* was saying that, why did you say *you* were not saying that?
That makes no sense.
> You're so wrong it is not even funny; its just the typical
>jealous bigotry of the specialist. You have a flimsy grasp, in fact, of
>anything software related, despite your ability to program software.
Ha!
>You've been trained to come up with all these metaphysical ideas about
>how your software works,
Uh? I *know* how my software works. Just like your mechanic knows how
an engine works. You don't know how software works.
> [...]
>>>I'm sorry if you missed it, but you have to pay attention. The
>>>difference is that your conception of software is metaphysically based.
>>
>>My conception of software is strictly practical. Software is a material
>>entity to me.
>
>Thus the problem. That idea of software is obviously not very
>practical.
It gets software into existence. That's practical. If software was
immaterial, there would be a lot less of it.
> Even assuming that by "entity" you did not mean "willful,
>cognizant entity", but actually just meant "object".
Of course when I say entity I mean entity. "Anything having existence"
according to wordnet.
> Obviously, calling
>software a material object is not what you meant, either.
That's pretty much what I meant. Of course it's an object that's
pretty easy to duplicate, but the first one is hard to create.
Just like an electronic book.
>>>>and I should just accept it?
>>>
>>>Certainly not. You should question it, you should probe it, you should
>>>explore it. You should get your head out of your ass.
>>>
>>>>I am not gullible, Max. You have to work harder than that.
>>>
>>>Sorry, that's as hard as I'm willing to work until you start paying me.
>>
>>I would have to be a lot drunker to pay you for the abilities shown here.
>>What precisely is your field of expertise? Not software, not law...
>
>But both, that's right.
What's right? If you don't know one of them, youcan't know both.
> If you try real hard to think harder, you MIGHT
>be able to adequately understand maybe ONE of them. Until then, you've
>got too much of a "stick up your ass condescending prick" attitude about
>you, so I'll desist here.
Yeah!
Let's see if that's true.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
From: Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:48:43 +1000
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> silverback wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 14:00:58 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Charles Lyttle wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Mathew wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Jim Richardson wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:51:42 GMT,
> > >> > > > silverback, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >> > > > brought forth the following words...:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > >On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:24:34 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > >> > > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >>Goldhammer wrote:
> > >> > > > >>>
> > >> > > > >>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:33:15 -0400,
> > >> > > > >>> Rob Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > > > >>>
> > >> > > > >>> > Right. Fascism is characterized by the *state-directed* control of
> > >> > > > >>> >the economy,
> > >> > > > >>>
> > >> > > > >>> Hmm. Sounds like communism.
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >>Precisely.
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >>Communism and Fascism are merely different sides of the same coin.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >bullshit you lying sack of shit. Fascism is the polar opposite of
> > >> > > > >communism. They have nothing in common.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Fascicsm=control by a ruling oligarchy that murders it's population.
> > >> > > > Communism=control by a ruling oligarchy that murders it's population.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > What about Capitalist Fascist dictatorships like the
> > >> > > Philippines,particulary under Marcos.
> > >> >
> > >> > Capitalism and Fascism are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TERMS, you goddmned fucking
>moron.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> BZZZZT. Wrong. Both the Italian and Spanish Fascist governments were
> > >> very capitalistic. Capital is just one of the Bunds that make up a
> > >> Fascist government. Labor, Church, Military are three others.
> > >
> > >Wrong. Free Markets are fundamental to the definition of Capitalism.
> > >Fascism's oppressive state involvement in the economy PREVENTS any
> >
> > wrong fuckhead fascism is based on corporate rule. Fascism is a
> > capitalistic society.
>
> Corporate =/= capitalistic, moron.
>
> There have been corporations all over Russia THROUGHOUT the overt
> communist years (and right through to the current "communism with
> a happy-face mask").
>
> Secondly...
>
>
> Sliverdick, why do you prefer government bureacrate rule vs. corporate rule?
>
> At least corporations have to PROVIDE SOMETHING WORTH HAVING to keep
> their power. Where as government bureacrats need to merely serve
> the politicians, without doing a damn bit of good for you and me.
So when it is found that trace amounts of Dixon has been found to cause
cancer,and the EPA is is prevented from telling the public about it
because of the meat and dairy industry getting a court order to have this
info delayed,what do you call this?
When the Exxon Valdeze spill put 10,000 fishermen,Native Alaskan Indians
and Aleuts,as well as whites,out of work and make them dependent on
foodstamps and welfare for months,you see how a Capitalistic enterprize
forced small independent workers of a Capitalistic system,get on a
Socialistic program,or go broke;irionic
Now should there be striter regulation so that a Captain of an oil tanker
should not be drunk driving?
>
> Hope that helps?
>
> Thirdly: you STILL have not addressed the fact that:
>
> Fascism = control by a ruling oligarchy that murders it's population.
> Communism = control by a ruling oligarchy that murders it's population.
A the U.S supports or has supported many Fascist countries.
Marcos of the Philippines is one I personally experienced.
>
>
> >
> > >true Free Market...thus, Capitalism and Fascism are mutually exclusive.
> >
> > nope they go hand in hand with each other liar.
> >
> > >
> > >Hope that helps, uneducated fool.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Japan and several other Asian/Pacific countries also adopted variants of
> > >> Fascism. In Japan the primary Bunds today are Merchant, Farmer,
> > >> Industry, the Military haveing fallen in disgrace after WWII.
> > >
> > >Scott Erb (Professional blackboard washer), are you listening????
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > wow! no similarity there!
> > >> > > >
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
> can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: 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
>
> H: "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"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 17 Apr 2001 13:51:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:18:12 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 09 Apr 2001 01:43:25
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> >>So there were no libraries which existed at the time that did what Qt
>>> >>and KDElibs now do, but this program somehow was written to be able to
>>> >>use such a library, though it didn't exist?
>>> >
>>> >Precisely.
>>>
>>> You obviously misunderstood the question. No, you cannot write a
>>> program which requires a library which does not yet exist.
>>
>>Of course you can. Large projects always start with API specs so the
>>components can be developed in parallel. There is no reason to wait
>>for a library to exist before writing code that will use it.
>
>And of course, these projects do not then involve weeks and months of
>fixing all the problems in the code because you can't really do what you
>described very well, even if you can do it practically.
Not a whole lot, if the API is competently written.
>You've described a process which seems to me to clearly indicate that it
>is an engineering project. The API would thereby, at least by analogy,
>be the architectural plans, would it not?
The API is a functional specification, not an architectural one.
The same API can be implemented using several different architectural
approaches. Unless you meant architecture in the non-computer meaning.
For example: the architectural plans specify where the beams must go,
their shape size and material.
Yet, on a software project, the implementation details are not
dependent on the API almost at all.
I would just say that the analogy is flawed.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 17 Apr 2001 13:53:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:18:27 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 Apr 2001 19:02:47
>>On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:54:33 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 Apr 2001 00:06:04
>>>GMT;
>>>>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:35 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What part of copyright law says anything about being "useful"? Or
>>>>>>that the covered program must work at all?
>>>>>
>>>>>The one that makes it part of the laws of the United States of America,
>>>>>where epistemological arguments are not allowed to make an individuals
>>>>>rights disappear in a puff of smoke.
>>>>>
>>>>>If it isn't useful or doesn't work, it is not valuable to anybody, hence
>>>>>cannot be bought and sold, hence cannot be intellectual property.
>>>>
>>>>Excuse me, but you are making that up.
>>>
>>>It is an abstraction, yes. I would even go so far as to point out that
>>>it is a conceptual extension of current copyright law. What's your
>>>point?
>>
>>That we are not ruled by conceptual extensions of the law that exist
>>solely in your mind.
>
>It seems as true and correct a definition of "ethics" as I can come up
>with, without getting into religion. Are you not ethical?
*I* am not ruled by conceptual extensions of the law that exist solely
in *your* mind. Gee.
>>>>What is the "usefulness", of "Satisfaction"? how does it "work"?
>>>
>>>Ask the guy who's paying for it; the customer is always right, in these
>>>things.
>>
>>You are using circular reasoning: works can only be protected if
>>they are functional. [...]
>
>I know I just claimed to somebody else that I'm not overly concerned
>with literal text, but I would surely love to see a quote from some
>copyright law which states that this is the case. It sounds imaginary
>to me. And so your argument falls due to a false premise.
That's not the law, that is what you claimed three posts ago. Dammit,
at least stick to your argument!
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "David Ehrens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Microsoft gets hard
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:56:26 GMT
"JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
...
> Since you actually are or "were" classified as a Microsoft Business
Partner,
> I can safely assume that your now "extinct" like the other 32,000 that
he
> claims are now extinct, since all business partners of Microsoft are
> supposedly EXTINCT? Or could it be that there are really NO business
Jeez. You've really got to cut back on your coffee! What I was saying is
that Microsoft's claims of x zillion business partners really don't mean
much since many, like me, found the programs to be worthless. I'm sure
there are many out there that did not bail (as we did). I was not
talking about extinction and, if you reread what I wrote, I doubt you
will even find the word there.
Got that?
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux is for the lazy
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:08:24 +0000 (UTC)
After some deliberation, I've come to the conclusion that Linux
(and Unices in general) are built by the lazy, for the lazy.
As proof of this, let's look through the whole gamut of
UI tools.
First of all, notice that the most commonly-used shell commands
are two letters long (cd, ls, mv, cp, and so forth). Why not
"list", or "move", or "copy"? Because that's too many letters
to type, and so laziness prevails.
Then there's the standard directory structure. These are
typically three letters (/usr, /tmp, /bin, /etc.). Why?
Because typing in long directory names is tedious.
Laziness wins again.
Notice that all the modern command shells support tab-completion?
Yep, another point for laziness. Nobody wants to type in the
whole name "foobar" when nothing else has the same name
beyond "foo".
Moving on a bit more, we come to X11. Here's a tool absolutely
dedicated to servicing the lazy. Don't want to get up and
walk down the hall to the server? Easy, just pop open a
half dozen X clients from it and pretend you're sitting right
in front of it.
I'm sure many of you can think of more, but I think the point
is clear: if you want to add a really successful feature
to the Unix UI, make it a feature that facilitates laziness -
because I'm really enjoying not having to do so much work... :)
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
