Posts by Kiwi 4368 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Sep 2011
Sorry I'm so thick.
I don't think it's you. If it is you, then it's not a unique problem.
But I think this is a poor man's bargain basement version of the same bot that does AMFM. One where they're running it through several instances of google translate before we see the result.
As such, El Reg is whitelisted, as is DDG. Ads are fine if they stay in their place and are adverts rather than 'interactive media' forced down your throat
I'd love to unblock El Reg but.. I've tried it before and quickly been over-run by annoying video ads/animated gifs etc. Fix that lot, I'll un block (don't you know it? I'm not a poet!)
[Edit : After a quick look seems no more annoying moving ads on El Reg! Will leave the blockers turned off for now...]
"Same reason DOS/Windows dominated PC operating systems"No that was DirectX - games games and more games.
DX didn't come out till late '95 in answer to issues around W95 and gaming, whereas DOS still had the better performance for games.
Yet at that stage the dominance was already pretty well set for the home/small office market as DOS and later Win311/DOS was already on the machine.
DX has helped cement that, but it wasn't the cause.
I really dislike Google, but their tech results are far better. Sorry DDG.
A year back I would've grudginly but completely agreed - DDG's results weren't great (perhaps explained by partnering iwth Bing - I mean they used to show a school near me which had been demolished for a long time and the area had been filled with houses for at least 5 years - entire suburbs missing from their maps and search results grossly out of date).
But these days, while DDG hasn't improved much google's results have been getting steadily worse especially with their more recent changes. Couple that with removing simple boolean operators (eg +"This text must be there" -notthis" would mean only those pages that had "This text must be there" would be shown and any page with "notthis" would not be shown) and several other cahnges to their ranking etc, and I find now DDG is OK but not nearly as good as oldgoogle but newgoogle is quite shit, perhaps even worse than oldDDG.
The only inconvenience is sharing stuff (ie. web URL's and cut-and-paste) between the two devices (there must be an app...).
Some VNC software will do that happily (but tends to work 1-way, ie if the tablet is the viewer than you can copy from the PC but not send from the PC). There's the program Synergy but no idea if that does tablets (yet). Stuff like Team Viewer will do it, but same as with the VNC.
That's assuming ipad has these of course. I know I can do that sort of stuff with Android and have done often :) (also nice having an android tablet with a 'cast everything' function built in - when you have the receiver to match of course, which I don't but a few others I know do :)
"So what did he say then?"You brought Al Gore into this, so why don't *you* give us a quote from him that backs your stance rather than telling the rest of us to do your research for you?
IIRC my hairy arse...
IOW, I'm quite correct and the coasal-property owning massive-carbonfootprint-house-dwelling swindler did actually say that or something very nearly that.
As I've said before. Al Gore clearly does not believe what he claims about the climate, one glance at how he lives would show that. If he doesn't believe it, why should I?
(And no, I'm not going to watch his foul propaganda-piece that he seems to have been using to sink land values in certain areas so he could get some cheap additions to his mansions [and an edit to remove stuff that probably never would've made it past the moderators anyway])
As sea levels rise, the reefs will rise with them and so will the land level. As sea levels fall, the reefs will sink with it and exposed "Land" will be rapidly eroded away.
Great post, and a concept even I'd not considered. Thanks very much for teaching me something worthwhile before my day is even really started!
How well coral growth can keep up with rapid changes in sea level and changing sea temperatures I do not know.
I honestly don't believe it's temperature we have to worry about.
The plastics and other pollutants we dump into our oceans however - that's a whole different matter.
What happened 10,000 years ago (Or so) when, in a comparatively short timescale, sea levels rose by hundreds of meters and the water got a lot hotter?
Well it's quite simple. They were completely and utterly destroyed as was all life on earth, only to magically come back into existence when the sea levels fell again.
(Although some of these islands may be the result of much more recent volcanic/tectonic events and thus far more likely to appear and disappear due to that or the effects of sea motion on unstable rapidly-cooled volcanic rock)
Ignoring any other flaws in this argument, coastlines are not vertical walls. As the sea level rises, it takes a greater volume of water to produce each mm rise.
You haven't seen some of the coastlines around these areas! :)
But even so.. We were supposed to see rises of several metres by now. I should need scuba gear to stand on the Petone foreshore as it was in 1995, but I can stand at the low-tide mark of the 1980's with no visible sign of sea level rise since then. Petone itself should be under water based on the alarmist warmist 'predictions' of the 90's, but this hasn't happened.
Their predictions are way off, especially when you take into account the land being eroded and washed into sea which would make their predictions less than the actual effect (since they only took into account glacial/polar ice not the somewhat steady rates of erosion).
NZ's coastline s actually quite interesting from a historical sea level stance. We can see in many places the remains of rivers that have long since disappeared beneath the waves, and in other areas (around the Wainuiomata coastline for example) you can see where the sea was at least 5m higher than it is today and not that long ago (most likely related to the quake that brought the land that is now Wellington Airport out of the sea). Look at the South/Central Taranaki coastline (especially a few hundred metres back from the coastline) and you can see where the beach was a few thousand years back (much upheaval in the land there thanks to the oversized zit).
The science is terrible in most warmist/greeny fields, and that is disturbing as what they seek to use to 'mitigate the effects' will actually do a hell of a lot more damage to the planet. So many things done or tried that are terrible for the environment and cause far more, not less, pollution or direct damage. Hopefully some day soon we can treat them like attorney-drones and start getting a bounty for each one we despatch. My dislike for them stems from simply loving the land and wanting to protect it, and seeing the stupid things these people are demanding which will wreak havoc on the land and the natural life that inhabits it.
If fridges are to be smart and automated, the obvious application is to add robotic sex. Yes, attached to the fridge. Many a teenager has appeared, to his or her parents, to be standing in the kitchen, fridge open, humping the door.
Oh, "Oh Matron" was already way ahead of you over here..
Mine's the rather dingy-looking creepy raincoat. Yes, the rubber one.
Can you tag certain people so that you, entirely coincidentally, "just run out" of their favourite whenever they arrive?
I know way to many where the act of asking them to help top up your stocks of their preferred drink means they won't show up at all.
Knowledge I've put to good use on a few occasions... :)
They probably are going to be unrepairable or, if they are, cost-prohibitive to do so. Nobody fixes anything these days. Toss it out and by another---the new one has better features, anyway.
I recently had a great fridge develop a refrigerant leak. Probably not even 20 years old. Quoted price of fixing was vastly more than I could justify, even though it'd outlast it's replacement. That was the cost of opening it up, inspecting the piping, sealing the leak (and any other bits of piping that were decaying), re-gassing and closing. I even suggested they, instead of hunting and repairing the damaged pipe just replace it (nothing special really, should've been a doddle). No, too much.
If the gas wasn't such a controlled substance over these parts I'm sure I could've done all that myself, with them inspecting any joints before refilling.
Paris coz this world is getting pretty fucking stupid in the "making stuff green" shit that really does more damage.
Maybe I'm old fashioned expecting fridges and large appliances to have 20-30 years life.
Why such a short life span?
My microwave pre-dates the 80s. I have a mate with a perfectly functional chest freezer that pre-dates me. Other than the odd clean and a change of seal, these things really could last more than 40 years if built and used right.
TV. In the kitchen? Why? And the dining room? That's.... I mean really totally crazy. Why would anybody do that at all?
Back in the early 90's I boasted that I was rich enough to have a TV in my kitchen, dining room, living room, bedroom and even my laundry. Worked well until someone pointed out that they were all the same room :(
Well, this review of the literature suggests an effect.
Bloody hell. Thanks for the rather chilling read! I knew the numbers were bad, but even the 30% quoted in places in that article (quick skim - to tired to read in depth sorry) is scary! Even 10% of food going to waste is a hell of a lot! (and that's the wastage before getting to the house even, not considering what is purchased, left in the fridge/cupboard for a decade, then tossed in a mad fit before the new girlfriend arrives)
I've found keeping it reasonably full reduces the duty cycle of my fridge a lot, as does reducing the door openings if it's less full. I live in a warmish climate with no A/C.
Yup, I also have used that practice especially when poorer. Used to keep a lot of bottles of water in the fridge when things were running low and it'd be a while before I was filling it again. Used to also get mocked till a very long power cut, and whereas people were finding their fridges and freezers getting badly warm after just 4 or 5 hours, mine was still plenty cold after more than 12 hours. (limiting the opening helped a lot too).
People who have teenagers will know that the vegetables will get left well alone.
Ultra sneaky trick..
Get them involved in gardening.
Sneakier even more trick.. Don't ask them to help you, actually ask them to stay away - "forbidden fruit" so-to-speak. If you don't want them doing it then it's the latest must-do thing for them.
ultimately, I don't see it as a problem until the moment when smart tellies will INSIST they "have to" be connected to the internet to actually work. But, in general, I find cries of horror in this field greatly exaggerated.
Not too many months back there were some very good WiFi signal analysers for Android.
Then there was an update to some part of Android (leastways what my tablet's got). Now, for those same analysers to work, they MUST have "location services" turned on.
I personally cannot see how having GPS turned on will change the signal strength of the WiFi or which channels my neighbours use. I can see that such information would be of great "user-experience-enhancing""[1] interest to Slurpy McSlurpface et al.
It's coming. Connect or face reduced functionality. And there's the old "security updates" timeout (eg what IIRC MS has done with home W10) - don't get updates then your TV/etc stops working after a while, even if never connected to anything other than a STB/Pi etc
(Reminds me, I think I have an old backup .apk floating around - another app for the remove/install-from-old/never-again-update list?)
[1] Ie "we steal more of your personal info"
"The privacy community, he said, has mostly come to terms with the privacy trade-off"And who is a member of this "Privacy Community" he is referring to? Clearly it doesn't include myself or the many privacy advocates I associate with.
Add myself and those I talk with to the list as well.
While I do sometimes use their search engine, and I know lots of other sites feed in stuff where they can, I block as much of google as I can. I certainly would never trust any of their safe site systems. Nor would I trust them to honour 'right to be forgotten" even if the smallest breach came with a torturous sentence.
I think you're misunderstanding how this works. The *service* in this context is your web-browser, not the safe-browsing service.I really think that you are confused. If you insist that the service is your web browser, then by your logic, the browser should request your explicit consent before sending your IP address to any third party.
By choosing to visit theregister.co.uk, I am explicitly telling my browser that is the site I wish to visit. It could be I've seen a link in the results to a specific search query, or someone has sent me a link to an article in response to requested information etc - whatever the case I explicitly choose to visit El Reg.
By my choosing to visit El Reg I give that permission quite explicitly.
However, El Reg also calls to "admedo" who I do not wish to communicate with, and it would do so automatically if I had PiHole/NoScript turned off (not sure if admedo is in PH, must try to remember to check/add it). I have NOT consented to this (not under GDPR as not in EU but beside the point).
What the stuff in this article does is worse still - it requests data from Google/Tencent about the site (or about a portion of the URL). That gives McSlurpies 1) Where I am (esp if I am using a tablet with GPS turned on (or turned OFF but, well, you know, McSlurpy think I actually might really want them to know after all), what time I am browsing, how long/how many sites I visit during a browsing session, and with the collectng and analysing of requests as covered above, what site(s) I am visiting.
This is NOT something I would consent to, and as it's built in to Safari (and, I assume, chrome) and turned on by default, they are being given information I not only did not consent to but probably (given the knowledge of the average user in these cases) did not know I was giving out and wasn't even told about (given the way google tries to hide what they're actually doing behind reams and reams of legalspeak mixed in with tons of feelgood gobbledegook)
Yep, falls foul of NZ's privacy act and likley GDPR as that's a stronger law.
@kiwi - great post, as ever. An fair marketplace needs to have the option for a provider to say "I am not going to serve *you* for any or no reason. The open marketplace will then provide places that will serve *you* - the shop selling the same items as the place that said "no" gains customers.
Thanks :)
I used to get around "discrimination laws"[1] by simply (and very often quite truthfully) stating that I was very busy and would not be likely to get on to your job for at least a week, and try another firm. I did this quite often even for valued customers (although a slight difference in which 'other firm' was recommended :) ) so anyone trying to take me to court would've had a hard time proving their case.
The way I understand things, in many cases the psychological effect on some being forced to serve a class of people they don't like (especially if that dislike is borne from fear - irrational or otherwise) is very similar to that where victims of a crime are forced to be around a person who does not exactly bring them vast feelings of happy joyfulness. It can be quite an unsettling experience, to put it mildly.
[1] It was done on the basis of how annoying you are, not based on other views - quite like to talk to people of opposing viewpoints as I may be able to convince them or I may learn something valuable! We did have one person try something once but it was politely pointed out to them that since I 'suffer from the same malady' they were using as their claim for discrimination, they'd struggle to win
and I was actually told by her that I wouldn’t be allowed to work with Stallman after she read some article about him.
I used to have a rather dim view of him as well based on several articles.
Recently spoke with him in person. Much changed view now, and reading some of the other stuff about him - especially the articles accusing him of this and that (and what he actually said rather than the stuff they try to insinuate he meant rather than looking at his actual words).
I'd taken the majority of bad stuff said about him as truth without once actually looking into the claims. Now I have, and have applied some actual thought to stuff around it, and I've had to increase my view of him.
Maybe your wife should take a better look at things :)
So wait.. The "decent thing" is to quit when a tiny majority of people say you should consider it?I assume you meant tiny minority. The decent thing is to consider quitting when you're no longer an asset and before you destroy your own legacy. If only 1 or 2 people said it, well that could be a personality clash or rivalry or the complainant's issue. 24 people may be a small number in absolute terms, but it signifies there's at least a question to be asked. You can't explain away that many disgruntled maintainers, can you?
Correct, I did mean "minority". From the numbers I've seen quoted, GNU has at least 300 and probably more likely 500 maintainers. So lets go with 250 maintainers - those making the complaint are still less than 1%. If it's 500, they're less than 1/2% (<0.05% in case my notation is unclear).
I've worked on much smaller projects where a much larger % of people strongly take a different view. Even with volunteering, they've either taken their ball and gone home, continued working but griping all the time (often asked to leave in the end because their negativity harms the project), or been mature enough to realise they're a minority, it's not "their" project as they came on board later rather than being the founder, and have worked diligently and worked for the project even if they disliked the decision. I can only assume that these 24 people are "millenials" as they expect a very small minority to be able to get their way regardless of the experience and expertise that went in long before them.
I think you should consider quitting the internet. Now, "do the decent thing" and leave.Thanks for the suggestion, but in the absence of any argument as to why we'd all be better off if I did, I think I'll stay.
Well I'll use one you seem to like. I dislike what you have to say. I dislike what you stand for. Therefore you should go.
That's the level of argument you're making. I'm not kidding, see below.
RMS need only address the argument that has been made to him as to why he should go, and we're all on the same plane.
So if he was to address it (which is often a very stupid thing to do in these cases sadly - defend yourself and people will only throw more negatively your way even if you can show yourself to be wholly innocent of the charges - "trying to prove you're innocent just shows you have something to hide", "no smoke without some fire" etc etc etc) - if he was to address this stuff you'd back off from demanding he leaves?
Look, don't take my word for it; have a look at Andy Wingo's take on the whole thing.
I did.
"The result, sadly, is that a significant proportion of those that have stuck with GNU don't see any problems with RMS. "
Boils down to "Even though lots of other people think we're wrong and he should stay, us very small few dislike him so he should go".
I read the post you linked. I read the material linked from the post you linked and much of the material linked from that. What I saw disgusted me, and just about brought tears to my eyes.
Stallman said it's a bad thing to be claiming "rape" just based on someone being 17 or 18 in a certain area (ie "statutory rape") - as a rape victim I absolutely have to agree with him, someone doing something with someone just under age is nowhere near the same as someone holding someone down and forcing them to do stuff they don't want to.
Stallman is being villified for commenting at some stage that he thought the age of consent could be at 16, obviously making him a 'child molester' in these people's eyes. For me, I could quite legally go out and bang some 16yo boy tonight because I live in one of the majority of countries where it is 16 or lower (I believe, never studied it). A lot of people would be creeped out since he'd be some 30 years my junior, but much of the world believes that if some 16yo twink is into ancient bears then that should be what he's allowed to do. Believing that does not make someone a child molester. (well, maybe it kinda does given the age gap, but it's still legal - and yes, arguing that something is "legal" does not make it morally or particularly socially acceptable!).
The arguments and comments by these people, especailly as many are just based on hearsay and rumour or things they personally find offensive ("people seen lounging around shirtless in Stallman's living area - OH THE HORROR!" (without any real context given - was it someone who lived there? Someone escaping severe summer heat? A sex-orgy of overweight ancient bears? (this mindbleach is MINE! GET YOUR OWN!)
I'm afraid the post you linked to has done more to harm your argument than anything else you've said thus far. If this guy is the calibre of those 24 who are wanting Mr Stallman to leave, then really they should just fork off and do something else, leave the rest of us alone.
As I said earlier, my opinion of Mr Stallman, based on comments by other people, was quite low until recently when I had a little bit of personal dealings with him. Reading what you provided has helped actually improve my opinion of him, and the strength of character he must have to have been continuing the fight despite all the crap thrown his way, much of it like the childish "creepy teacher" rumours that 12 and 13yos seem to indulge in.
Should his freedoms be stifled just because he's famous?No, because he represents a larger idea than himself.
To me, that is an exceptionally weak argument for curtailing someone's freedoms.
And the achievements built by the hundreds of GNU maintainers are also precious and valuable and are worthy of protection.
I agree.
But... It is up to them to speak up for themselves if they disagree with what someone else is saying from within their project.
His opinions on some things are invalid just because he's well [known]?Not at all, but because sharing his opinions on controversial matters (valid or invalid doesn't matter) unrelated to Free Software risks the stated goal of GNU to empower all computer users.
[Fixed an earlier typo in my quote]. Sorry, but that is still a very weak argument, and perhaps a damaging one as well - but I will get to this point soon (unless the beeping of the dinner bell interrupts me and I forget)
There are more qualified people than RMS to speak out on correct usage, legal terminology and the psychological harms of abuse. His silence on these topics is no loss to the commonweal when set against the potential harm to the GNU project, and others will surely make those arguments if needs be.
Unfortunately not many do, and many who have one of the key qualifications don't because people will tell them it's not their place, they risk damaging their brand etc.
When black/gay/otherminority rights have been fought for, it's not those of us within those minorities who've had any real voice or power. It's famous people who've spoken "out of turn", added their name to the fight, that has helped.
People (some of) the public respect and listen to who've gotten in and said "They're right, we need to change' have brought about a huge change in thinking, whereas us "worthless criminals/scum/etc" within the minorities have been largely ignored. A couple of decades ago, almost every where in the world, non-straight people were perceived as criminals. It took brave people to stand up and speak up, even though they were "unqualified" and "risked damaging their brand". No doubt many careers were harmed, even ruined in the early days. Before that, people were standing up for "black rights" across the USA, risking a lot more than just reputations to stand up for a largely (and very wrongly) despised group of people.
People in minorities stand up, they don;t get heard; they get ignored, jailed, killed. Famous/respected people stand up, they get abused, but also get heard.
That's why it's important to encourage people to speak up for what we believe regardless of whatever "brand damage" may be done. Otherwise, we get disgusting things like the Mozilla guy putting money in to an organisation that was against gay marriage and him getting canned as a result of a very small few vocal people creating an uproar.
Obviously if RMS were not the figurehead of GNU (or until recently FSF) I'd absolutely agree with his speaking freely on any subject and I'd agree with your first para "I don't agree with ... regardless of his position." without qualification.
But, if he were not in some sense 'famous' he'd just be another voice in the wind that could easily be ignored, like many many thousands of other plebs who aren't worth giving a moment's thought or air-time to, unless they violently become some statistic.
I've found honesty is, rather strangely to you perhaps, the greatest basis for trust.I don't find it strange at all. But a simple evaluation of honesty in the moment of a conversation or other transaction is not always possible.
Perhaps, given the context of the conversation, we're talking longer time-frames here than a quick couple of seconds? And not exactly talking about urgent life-or-death situations either. :)
To return to the psychology aspect, we use courtesy, respect and adherence to norms as a short-hand if imperfect way to judge the trustworthiness of otherwise unknown persons to us, where we cannot independently check the honesty of that person or their statements.
You may, but lots of us don't follow that same chain of thought. Too many "nice, normal, socially adept" people have stabbed us in the back the moment the cameras/other people were looking elsewhere.
In an emergency you don't want to trust the person looking to play social niceties, you want to trust the person who is getting stuff done - generally at least.
It happens all the time, subconciously. You might be rationally evaluating their honesty, but under the hood, you're absorbing the messages from their conduct. You could be misled if they can fake it, but that's not your fault.
The greater people are playing "social niceties" the more likely that you've already been misled :)
(I'd also much rather spend time with people who disagree with me than those who are in full agreement - "iron sharpens iron" etc. We can learn much more by disagreement than by agreement in many cases :) )
Yep, unstable "geniuses" like Stallman and Torvalds wouldn't last a day working a job in the real world.
These two have had quite an impact on the real world. They're worked very long hours, likely often getting more abuse than thanks, and sacrificed a fair bit to achieve what they have done.
What have you accomplished? Is there software of yours in even 1,000th of a % of the worlds devices? Do millions of people around the world respect/revere/curse your name - or are you barely known even here where you're achieved the great "silver badge" status?
However he has shown *very* questionable moral standards by defending the pedophile/people trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, as well as making comments which can only be described as pro-pedophilia.
Where did he defend Epstein? I did see him defend one of Epstein's victims, but can you show where he defended Epstein?
His other comments were actually quite correct and not necessarily pro-paedophillia. If someone is using a fictional drawing, who is getting hurt? If you're wanking to a picture of me from when I was a 14yo and I don't know/don't care, l how am I hurt? (yes, found out a guy I knew was doing that some years back - didn't hurt me none then doesn't hurt me any now) It's not "pro-paedophillia" to tell the truth that these things don't always cause harm, especially when we're talking fictional drawings of non-existant people or innocent photos where the 'victim' wasn't hurt then and isn't being hurt now.
If that’s the guy you look up to, that reflects on you too...
He held a view, was given some education, and changed his view. He's spent a lot of time working hard for the betterment of others, and accomplished a lot for the rest of us. Only a few months ago I didn't hold a high view of him but now he actually is someone I respect. If that reflects on me, good.
You might want to think about how your statements reflect on yourself.
He was very good at making OTHERS contribute while reaping the benefits for himself. His a a big parasite, well versed in propaganda, and little else. And that explains a lot about his other inclinations.
1) [citation needed]
2) What have you contributed to this world? How can you call others a parasite without making any valuable contributions yourself?
3) What are these 'inclinations' you're insinuating? And, for them, [citation needed]
Why should some people have the right to say whatever they want, but others not have their right to express their own thoughts on what was said?
Here's the problem. I own a shop, and certain classes of people disgust/offend/trouble/whatever me. Maybe I am openly Christian with conservative views and own a shop that makes wedding cakes. Someone of one of those classes of people comes in - let's say a straight couple who are each on their 3rd marriage. Because my religious beliefs don't support divorce, I should have the freedom to exclude these people or anyone else I wish from my shop/refuse to serve them.
But thanks to people like you, they run off and cry "discrimination" and thus I have to do a job for them even though said job infringes my religious freedoms as well as my freedom of association (which works the other way - the freedom to choose who I don't want to associate with).
People should be free to speak their minds, and we should be free to support whomever we wish to support, regardless of what others feel. Likewise, you should be free to go elsewhere/not rent your venue to me if you dislike my views and so on. A very big part of freedom is being free to chose who your clients are, who you associate with, and of course what you say.
You want a world where free speech is free of CONSEQUENCES.
I fully accept there are consequences for what I say. I've spoken 3 scary words that have ended friendships (where I'd hope for more), had an employer suggest I need to look elsewhere for work, made my closest friends cry, and also brought relief, joy, happiness, peace etc into people's lives with things I've said (or not said). I've hurt, maybe killed (by actions or neglect :( ), healed, and even saved a life or two (not heroically, just being there at the right time with the right words for a suicidal person).
But that others may take a dim view on what I want to say doesn't mean I should cower away in fear instead of speaking my mind. That is the world you want, know it or not - people fearful of saying that they believe, what they feel, lest it upset some shitty little snowflake with an over-inflated sense of entitlement. No thanks. If I hate you I won't care what you think. If I love you, I won't let your desires get in the way of me telling you something if I honestly believe it's what you need to hear.
When we're not free to speak, we're not free to help, love, or live.
He wasn't tricked into making the comments he did and it wasn't necessary for him to comment on the situation at all.
In no way was it necessary for you to comment here, yet you did. Why should anyone be restricted in speaking their mind just because they're a public figure?
This world would be a little bit worse if Mr Stallman hadn't dared to stand up and speak what he believed. When he was starting out, there were people who believed he should stick to other things and shut up about software. But he had the courage to stand up, speak up, and act on what he believed.
Can you truly say the same? Or does the thought of really standing up for what you belief cause you "a bit of damp discomfort"?
What have you accomplished?
However, I do expect everybody, including those who are smart, sensitive, and socially engaged, to occasionally do and say downright stupid and offensive things.
If you need a poster-child for that, I am available... (though I hear Donald Trump may soon be looking for a new career, assuming he doesn't get a new job title of "(finally)Convicted Criminal")
Oh, wait, you said occasionally.
Icon, coz, well...
the downvotes are probably just howler monkeys with no sense of humorOr people with a wide enough circle of friends to know someone LGBTQ.
He got an upvote from me.
He's quite right about the SOH (though a few may've downvoted him on principle - 'tis BB after all! :) )
RMS hasn't done *anything* for 20+ years except occasionally embarrass the open source movement.
OOI, have you achieved anything of note? Have you achieved much at all compared to him?
If an alien ship took him away tomorrow, open source would go on just fine without him - and if fact, we'd have less negative publicity stories like this one.
Nah, you're quite wrong there. Just look at how much greatness in this world has been destroyed by SJW's and other ill-informed nosey scum. Get rid of the guard at the door that keeps them away, they'll flood in and ruin the place in minutes.
Unless we replace RMS with someone with a lot of his qualities (the bad with the good, sadly), the SJW's and other vile scum will ruin everything in sight before we know what's hit the fan and been sprayed all over the place (not that SJW's need a fan to help them spread shit everywhere).
RMS has been at the head for long enough. It is time for him for step down and let new blood run the show.
Why?
And more importantly; much much much more importantly, who?
Do you know anyone with the same determination and downright stubbornness to keep the project going without compromising core principles for a little bit of current political gain? Who won't kowtow to SJW's et al just for some peace and quiet, even when that may mean the death of the project? Who will speak what they believe, popular or #sowrongheshoulddie?
Is there anyone out there you're willing to nominate who will do as much as RMS has done for the project, and without destroying it? (I'm imagining Mr Torvalds stepping down and by a horrible series of events pottything getting the reins of the kernel - here we stand at a point where something as bad could happen to GNU etc)
Who do you have in mind?
if you've had dealings with RMS and not found him a really serious pain I'd like to know.
I've only very recently had direct dealings with him, and I entered into that with some trepidation because of the reputation I've heard from people such as yourself.
Thus far, my dealings with him have been unexpectedly pleasant. It's unlikely, but I hope to actually meet him in person some day. 6 months ago I'd have turned down any direct dealings with him and probably avoided pretty much anything with his name on it, but a situation arose where my opinion of him was changed a little and that resulted in direct contact, and my opinion of him has changed from a negative one based on other's words to a positive one based on his own words and my own direct experience.
Your dealings with him are different to mine, but that's life. Sometimes some of us really rub other people the wrong way.
I don't buy the slippery slope argument.
Open your eyes!
Look at what our parents/grandparents for against in WWII.
Look at how much of what they fought so hard to prevent has now come upon Western society.
And have a damned good look at the many small, insignificant, pragmatic steps we took to allow what a much smarter generation fought to prevent.
As much as I dislike expletives, I'll go back to what I originally wrote for my first sentence.
OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES!
Some of RMS's rigidity around security and surveillance comes across as pretty selfish (e.g. insisting others access non-free sources for him) and paranoid.
Paranoid he may be, but he is right. I don't see how it can be "selfish" to want to protect others from these things; to continue to fight so hard, so alone, even when the rest of us are too stupid or too lazy to even notice the need to fight and roll over in our lazy sleep and tell him to go away.
"A little sleep, a little slumber..." - it's been said we're sleepwalking into a surveillance society. We need a ton more people like RMS to kick us out of bed, slap us awake in the most uncomfortable ways possible, and actually get us off our stupid lazy butts and fighting against the rubbish we've allowed into our world, piece by tiny little piece.
His “points” are insane. There’s no addressing them...
Sane people can generally refute the statements of the insane (at least where those insane statements are somewhat coherent anyway), even though the insane may not agree.
So.. Can you actually address the statements and refute them, or has a person you claim is insane made an argument that you cannot refute?
Stallman & friends could do with realising that the world doesn't revolve around them, and businesses are there to make a profit.
You must be a yank, right? Newsflash - a great many of us run businesses for fun, not profit (although the enjoyment we get is a significant "profit" even if we pour more money in than we ever take out - it's called living a life we love!)
There are solid technical and financial arguments to make, but sadly, the zealots seem to forever unable to stay with those and go almost unprompted into "preaching the gospel" mode, even if that is wholly inappropriate and badly timed, thus scaring away the "non-believers" and pretty much ruining their opportunities.
So because one of the victims of a crime is an unpopular creepy older guy, people who speak the truth about situation shouldn't be allowed to speak? Or is it just those who are well-known in one area aren't allowed to express their views in another?
He spoke the truth about a situation, unpopular as that truth was. Once it was unpopular to speak against slavery, but people took a risk and spoke up against that abhorrent practice, and now it is largely gone from the world. People risked their careers, position and even lives, and spoke up in support of those of us who are wired differently, and now we can live safely in a world that used to demand our death or incarceration. People continue to speak up against racism, even in areas where it is still sadly entrenched. And this world needs more people who speak up in support of unpopular victims of crime or injustice.
Richard Stallman shouldn't be getting such hatred for what he did, he should be at least getting our applause for taking an unpopular stand for truth (and, perhaps for him, a rare stand for reality!)
You want to live in the world, there are trade-offs. Some sacrifice is necessary.
A big problem is when the one being sacrificed is one who speaks out in support of a victim of a crime, even if that expression of support (or said crime victim) is unpopular.
I don't agree with a lot of things Mr Stallman has said, or the manner he has spoken in - but Ive probably said and done worse than him in my life (and I certainly don't have my name on an organisation with several hundred people supporting it - do you?), but as a supporter of freedom of speech myself I have to support his ability to say what he wants about all sorts of matters, like or hate his view, regardless of his position. Should his freedoms be stifled just because he's famous? Just because he's achieved more than most of the rest of us could even dream of? His opinions on some things are invalid just because he's well known for his opinions on other things and people look up to him?
Talk about "tall poppy" syndrome.
Trust is massive boon to efficiency, and it flows from courtesy, respect and an adherence to certain behavioural norms.
I've found honesty is, rather strangely to you perhaps, the greatest basis for trust. Courtesy is often faked/insincere. "Respect" can be born from genuine trust, compassion, or fear. It too can be insincere. "Adherence to certain behavioural norms" is often an abnormal constraint forced on people who can barely even grasp what it is let alone the reasons for it (especially those "on the autism spectrum"). Those qualities you listed - I don't see a good reason to trust someone just because of them, and I have unfortunately known too many people who try to push one or more of those attributes who are utterly unworthy of any trust.
Honesty, however. Even if I don't like what you say, hate your effen guts, think you smell funny etc etc.. If you're honest I can build a considerable amount of trust on that foundation.
(--> The first paragraph you wrote, however - excellent!)
hoped RMS would do the decent thing without them having to nail their colours to the mast.
So wait.. The "decent thing" is to quit when a tiny majority of people say you should consider it?
I think you should consider quitting the internet. Now, "do the decent thing" and leave.
The reason I quit using AC some time back is I realised that the 'decent thing' is to "nail my colours to the mast", to stand behind my words and be open about my views. I realise some post as AC because of legitimate political/legal/work reasons but this is not such a case. Those who wish for Mr Stallman to go should get some balls and make their point known, likewise those who wish him to stay. And those who are undecided.
Don't chicken out and hide in hopes someone else will do the dirty work, speak your mind and stand by your words. That is the decent thing.
Stallman is a "software fundamentalist", if he'd picked up the Koran or a Bible he'd be locked up somewhere for inciting religious hatred.
Reminds me, need to talk to you about something.
This stuff with Mr Stallman largely comes down to some SJW nonsense. He "triggered" them by making some statements that they found insensitive.
In some respects you almost seem to support their argument, and are certainly on the side of those against Mr Stlalman vs those largely who support him.
You do realise that "fuzzy wuzzy" is considered to be a rather racist term, right? Don't you think you should drop it before people start to notice and attack you for your insensitive posts - that, regardless of the intent of your name, the intent or implication of your posts, are always going to be exceptionally racist just because you chose that name?
You don't do your cause much good, and should be removed immediately!
(FWIW, I don't actually have a problem with it)
"... catastrophically insensitive statements..."
No.
I was catastrophically stupid snowflakes who took offence at something that was in no way offensive. They saw an accurate statement and took it completely out of context and imagined some offence behind it. They could not see enough wrong in the world so had to manufacture yet more to satisfy their retarded over-valued worthless egos.
Would be nice if these people hurried up and boarded that other ark, left this world and left the rest of us alone (I hear there's an opening for a couple of extra phone sanitisers on the sunnew planet)
The claims, made with a straight face, about the benefits of "genuine" cartridges included... security, in that hackers can exploit a "vulnerability where the supply chip meets the printer"
How about you don't put any fancy-pants code in the cartridge interface, cretins?
I'm surprised I had to read so far down the comments to get to someone else mentioning this! Figured I wouldn't mention it as surely at least a couple of dozen people had mentioned it in the first 24 or so comments..
Same thought.. Why put such a level of code in there that there could be a vulnerability? Just have the chip report some sort of basic ID (to catch an error of wrong colour in a certain bay, though HP are capable of doing slightly different shaped cartridges), ink level and that's that.
No bloody expiry date crap, nothing that blocks a refill (don't want me refilling cartridges then make new ones competitively priced!)
For a long time now HP have been off my buy lists due to their treatment of customers (eg their printer stuff, or $4,000+ craptops that melt down inside of 6 months because of poor cooling design+lack of decent thermal compound+rediculous lack of a simple "getting to hot powering off now" system - or even cheaper laptops that would melt the GPU off the board PDQ)
If I ever buy another printer it'll be a 2nd-hand laser, not that I print very often, printing for me is so rare I normally go to a local library. Any one got thoughts on OKI printers? (the large office type ones I am eyeing up atm have massive Linux drivers, 80Kb for the printer and 1.2MB for the scanner/ADF!)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
