I just sent off my replies to ESR's replies to my replies to his
replies to my comments on his Homesteading the Noosphere paper (which
were themselves a reply to ESR's reply to a message from RMS, etc.).
Respecting the various requests to keep the philosophy off of
license-discuss, I only sent my
How we want to feel about ourselves is a good motivation too.
Angelo wrote
>
> Hi,
>
> after following your thread for a while now it seems to me
> that you both agree more or less to each other but simply
> use different terms/words to express your selves.
Hi,
after following your thread for a while now it seems to me
that you both agree more or less to each other but simply
use different terms/words to express your selves.
To comment you, Richard, I do not believe that there is any
software engineer/software architect/programmer who does NOT
play
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:19:24 -0400
>From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I was unable to find the earlier part of the discussion, but I recall
>> that when Ian stated his motivations,
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:19:24 -0400
From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I was unable to find the earlier part of the discussion, but I recall
> that when Ian stated his motivations, you said that they were beside
> the point, bec
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
> I think "he said, she said" has gone beyond the point of usefulness to
> this list - let's move on.
So, who is the "he" and who is the "she"? ;)
Anybody know how to get off this list?
I've tried [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Mitch
I think "he said, she said" has gone beyond the point of usefulness to
this list - let's move on.
Brian
>RMS > I was unable to find the earlier part of the discussion, but I recall
>RMS that when Ian stated his motivations, you said that they were beside
>RMS > the point, because (you believed) his behavior could be predicted from
>RMS > reputation-seeking anyway.
>
ESR> Richard, you're unable to f
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I was unable to find the earlier part of the discussion, but I recall
> that when Ian stated his motivations, you said that they were beside
> the point, because (you believed) his behavior could be predicted from
> reputation-seeking anyway.
Richard, you'r
How the heck do you get that out of a presentation that includes
John Locke, microeconomic analysis, and several million years of
human evolutionary history?
You've said many things in your carreer; I have not read your papers
recently. I'm responding to things you said earlier in t
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I am sure it does, but in this discussion you said that predicting the
> hacking behavior of hackers is the only thing we should consider when
> we try to understand hacking and hackers.
How the heck do you get that out of a presentation that includes
John
> You seem to be arguing that we should try to understand certain
> actions of hackers without using the rest of what we understand about
> people generally
Hardly. My understanding draws widely on neoclassical economics, legal
history, anthropology, sociology, primate etholo
> From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Long theoretical discussion deleted]
It sounds as if my request is being ignored.
Maybe we should just move the _licensing_ discussions elsewhere.
Thanks
Bruce
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Judging theories against reality often involves testing predictions,
> but that is not the whole of it. Deutschmann, in "The Fabric of
> Reality", shows near the beginning that what we want from a theory is
> not mere prediction of facts, but explanation of
The greatest insight of the last two centuries in philosophy, and
arguably the greatest in its entire history, is that we have *nothing
else to go on* but predictive power;
Our understanding of reality can only be judged against observed
events. But doing this properly means judging
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:51:47 -0400
>From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I will argue that I am (necessarily) simplifying, but not
>*over*-simplifying. I offer a precise definition: a model is
>oversimplified when it is unab
16 matches
Mail list logo
