Linux-Advocacy Digest #437, Volume #34 Fri, 11 May 01 21:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:39 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
>
>> >Seriously, though, I think that it's a primitive API.
>>
>> Is there some taxonomy of APIs within the engineering community which I
>> am unaware of? If not, you're just begging the question, I think.
>>
>> Which is fine, as long as you say "I do not think it is really an API,
>> although it is a primitive form of API". At least then we know the
>> metaphysical ground you are standing on; where API's "in the wild" can
>> be captured and domesticated and categorized.
>>
>> Let me ask you something; did anyone ever call DOS interrupts "an API"
>> at the time DOS was prevalent? Or is this just hindsight that enables
>> you to ascertain the morphology of APIs?
>
>No one called the first automobils cars, but they are certainly primitive
>sort of a car.
>It fits into the defination of API, so it's an API.
>It doesn't fit into the same category as most APIs today, so I called it
>primitve API.
Well put. Now all you have to do is explain how some things are cars,
but not automobiles, and some things are automobiles, but not cars. Oh,
and we're still wondering what an API sitting curbside "looks like",
because the current theory is that they're rather less than concrete, in
the way of physical objects.
Or just admit that 'primitive API' is a rhetorical device for sparing
the quibbling in saying "it can be considered to be like an API but is
not an API".
It isn't so much the fact that APIs aren't concrete things, it's the
fact that those most familiar with APIs have such trouble realizing that
they aren't concrete things, which is so fascinating. To them, of
course, APIs *are* concrete things, far MORE absolute and definite then
the software on either side of the API. Yet this 'concrete' is the
'concrete' of things like truth and happiness, concepts which only occur
in our minds, not as physical but as metaphysical objects. The
"meaning" of the term API literally switches from concrete to ephemeral,
magically, as soon as it leaves the very restricted and professional
definition. Programmers themselves aren't even aware that speaking
about an API is actually speaking about how a particular (possibly
hypothetical) library works, not something separate at all.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:40 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 17:21:53
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
>> >"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:xEtK6.83$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> > > Tell us then of *your* criteria a body of functions must meet to be
>> >> > > classified as such...
>> >> >
>> >> > I asked him that before, couple of times, so far he refused to answer.
>> >>
>> >> I simply take him at his word that he's not a programmer when these little
>> >> asides occur. I enjoy the arguments, though.
>> >>
>> >> Oh what the hell, what's *your* definitive opinion, as a programmer, as to
>> >> 21h calls?
>> >
>> >That I'm glad to get rid of them :-)
>> >
>> >Seriously, though, I think that it's a primitive API.
>>
>> Is there some taxonomy of APIs within the engineering community which I
>> am unaware of? If not, you're just begging the question, I think.
>>
>> Which is fine, as long as you say "I do not think it is really an API,
>> although it is a primitive form of API". At least then we know the
>> metaphysical ground you are standing on; where API's "in the wild" can
>> be captured and domesticated and categorized.
>>
>> Let me ask you something; did anyone ever call DOS interrupts "an API"
>> at the time DOS was prevalent? Or is this just hindsight that enables
>> you to ascertain the morphology of APIs?
>>
>> --
>> T. Max Devlin
>> *** The best way to convince another is
>> to state your case moderately and
>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
>I've looked all over my documentation sets from MS dating back to 1987.
>No such wording back then about APIs. I'm beginning to thing MS has
>been re-painting their old horse a new color is all. Somehow, the
>semantics are being changed.
No, not at all. The term API simply didn't exist until "platforms"
(really, the roots of middleware) became more commonly the basis of an
application, as general purpose computers went from specialty use to
consumer use. It *would* have been entirely appropriate at the time to
call DOS an API, if the phrase meant anything to enough people. It
didn't, though; program developers were still writing to "bare metal",
on DOS, essentially, and "on the OS" everywhere else.
This is the root of the FSF's position on library linking, in fact; it's
all well and good to talk about "writing to an API" when there's
actually a replaceable library on the other side of the interface. But
when the only thing on the other side is just the bare metal or bios or
ONE SPECIFIC AND PARTICULAR library, talking about APIs is really just
nonsense outside the question of which function call to use for what,
and that is certainly nothing that anyone outside the program author
really cares about at all. Whether it is described as "calls in/to the
API" or "calls to/functions of the library" is just semantic quibbling.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:41 GMT
Said Dave Martel in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 18:42:28
>On Thu, 10 May 2001 17:21:53 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>> Let me ask you something; did anyone ever call DOS interrupts "an API"
>>> at the time DOS was prevalent? Or is this just hindsight that enables
>>> you to ascertain the morphology of APIs?
>>>
>>> --
>>> T. Max Devlin
>>> *** The best way to convince another is
>>> to state your case moderately and
>>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>>
>>I've looked all over my documentation sets from MS dating back to 1987.
>>No such wording back then about APIs. I'm beginning to thing MS has
>>been re-painting their old horse a new color is all. Somehow, the
>>semantics are being changed.
>
>Don't know how official it was, but I remember a time about 12 years
>ago when "DOS API" was a common term. I've long since thrown it out
>but also used to have a book entitled something like "A Programmer's
>Guide to the DOS API".
That would be right about the time the term became common because MS was
trying to minimize the use of said "DOS API", as they wanted to try to
migrate their monopoly to something other than DOS. It never really
worked, of course, but XP is supposed to (again) "change all that". In
the end, though, XP is just another variation on 'the Windows API'.
By reflection, its obviously comprehensible to reference "the DOS API",
but the only purpose I can think of for such reference would be to point
out how very much unacceptable as "an API" it is, whether you're a fan
of Windows or not.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:42 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 00:15:03
>Dave Martel wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 10 May 2001 17:21:53 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Let me ask you something; did anyone ever call DOS interrupts "an API"
>> >> at the time DOS was prevalent? Or is this just hindsight that enables
>> >> you to ascertain the morphology of APIs?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> T. Max Devlin
>> >> *** The best way to convince another is
>> >> to state your case moderately and
>> >> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>> >
>> >I've looked all over my documentation sets from MS dating back to 1987.
>> >No such wording back then about APIs. I'm beginning to thing MS has
>> >been re-painting their old horse a new color is all. Somehow, the
>> >semantics are being changed.
>>
>> Don't know how official it was, but I remember a time about 12 years
>> ago when "DOS API" was a common term. I've long since thrown it out
>> but also used to have a book entitled something like "A Programmer's
>> Guide to the DOS API".
>
>That is unfortunate for me. I have never seen the term "API" until long
>after I retired. I thought when I saw it that it meant the GUI form of
>a routine call.
That's entirely understandable. Nothing unfortunate about it; if
everybody 'knew' exactly what every word means, we wouldn't be humans
discussing things, we'd be computers transmitting data, and that's a
rather unappetizing perspective of the world, if nothing else.
>I guess I'm just out of date is all.
Nah; they're just full of youthful ignorance, is all.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:43 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>The government and Judge Jackson failed to show any real consumer harm from
>Microsoft's actions.
Judge Jackson had no reason or purpose in re-hashing a century of
anti-trust law. Maintaining prices above competition and excluding
competitors from the market are presumed by any rational person to be
'harmful to the consumer', not that this is at all necessary to prove it
was illegal under the Sherman Act.
Does *Senator* Murray believe that all laws should only be followed if
you personally agree with them? I wouldn't dispute the position, but it
certainly does seem odd for a litigators, let alone a Democratic one.
>We have growing productivity, falling software and
>computer prices, and a highly competitive economy that needs innovation to
>endure.
And is missing it for one rather apparent reason. The ability of the
planet to continue revolving despite Microsoft's criminal actions was,
of course, presented in defense by Microsoft, but the argument proved
uncompelling.
>Over the past twenty years, no company has done more for consumers
>and our national economy than Microsoft.
Or rather, monopolized both so thoroughly, and obviously unethically.
>We should be working to extend the
>benefits of technology to every American, not trying to cripple a major
>technology innovator.
Indeed; we should and we are. Vapid tautology alert!
>Competition and innovation are thriving in the new
>economy.
And you know that because if it weren't, there wouldn't be a new
economy, right? How marvelously circular is your logic. No wonder the
government is so oppressive and ineffectual at the same time.
>The technology sector doesn't need the government to reorganize
>it - it reorganizes itself every day.
>US Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
Sure it does. Yesterday, BeOS had a monopoly on PC operating system,
didn't they? Tomorrow, I think its scheduled to be Netscape again; or
is that AOL now? We're going to have to find somebody to fill DR-DOS's
slot next week, the day after Mac OS-X gets the monopoly.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:44 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>"For the sake of the new economy and economic growth in this country, I hope
>this decision is overturned on appeal. This overt bullying by Judge Jackson
>and the Clinton/Gore Justice Department is going to drive entrepreneurs and
>capital from the United States toward countries that truly appreciate the
>jobs and innovation that Microsoft creates. The free market is the best
>place to solve competitive business issues and consumers continue to applaud
>Microsoft's cutting-edge products and technologies."
>US Rep Pete Sessions (R-TX)
Would that be the "free market" that would occur in the US if MS weren't
breaking the law, or is this the "free market" in the rest of the world
where Linux is rapidly excluding monopoly crapware from consideration?
Tell it to the EU, Sessions.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:45 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>"Texans want unlimited opportunity, not unlimited government. Competition is
>a better regulator any day than government edicts.
Damn; you got that right, Ms Rylander!
>This federal intervention
>can do little more than have a chilling effect on entrepreneurs who look to
>the private sector to unleash their creative abilities. What we all need
>from government is less, not more. Less mandates, less taxation, less
>government spending and less regulation. It appears to me the only thing
>that needs to be broken up is the Justice Department."
>Comptroller Carole Keeton Rylander (R-TX)
This federal intervention has one purpose, one effect, and one result:
restoring competition to the free market. That is, after all, why the
Congress passed the Sherman Act, the courts have upheld it and
reasonably interpreted it, and the executive branch is not simply
correct but mandated to prosecute Microsoft's behavior.
No, JS PL; you can't shut me down this way, either. You'll run out of
quotes before I run out of words. At least get something from the last
18 months or so. All of the "this case is entirely unjustified" rhetoric
was pretty much swept away by the time MS was convicted.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:46 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>"There is no basis for concluding that the Justice Department's business
>model will benefit consumers. [...]"
>Gov. Gary Locke (D-WA)
Glad to hear the Governor's rather naive opinion. Guess you don't have
to know jack-shit about anti-trust to become a Governor.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:47 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>"I think we ought to be spending our time making sure there are a lot more
>Bill Gateses out there," Johnson said.
>US Rep. Eddie Bernise Johnson (D-TX), Seattle Times, June 7
Oh, THAT'll be fun. LOL!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:48 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>"Today is truly a sad day in our nation's history. Never before has our
>government so viciously pursued a company that has done so much good for not
>only Americans, but for people worldwide. Microsoft, the driving force
>behind the booming U.S. economy, has revolutionized how we communicate, how
>we educate our children, and how we live. It is clear that the government's
>lawsuit and Judge Jackson's decision ignored the basis of anti-trust law.
>Congress passed anti-trust laws to protect consumers, not competitors.
>Ironically, it is the Department of Justice that has harmed consumers."
>US Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA)
OH! The "sad day in government" FUD. You don't even have to get to the
bottom to know that it's a Republican talking. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:49 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>"Today's court order breaking up Microsoft and forcing it to relinquish its
>intellectual property to its foreign and domestic competitors [...]"
>U.S. Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
More tell-tale Republican fear-mongering. "Foreign an domestic
competitors", so you can choose who to shame and hate, while loving the
monopoly and all the benefits of its monopoly, which Doolittle seems to
think is intellectual property.
Nobody cares what MS does with its intellectual property, as long as
they don't lie to their customers about precisely what it does and how
it does it, so they can replace it if MS tries to monopolize and avoid
competition.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:50 GMT
Said Jay Maynard in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 May 2001 00:10:09 GMT;
>On Wed, 09 May 2001 14:59:44 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>I base my position on the advice of a friend who's a practicing copyright
>>>attorney. I have no idea where you fished your opinions out of.
>>The writings of judges, mostly. Believe it or not, judges are known to
>>disagree with practicing attorneys. (!)
>
>Citations, please. Your spoutings are too far out in left field for me to
>take this claim at face value.
Would that I had time for all the clues and details, examples and
evidence. Just start with this whole thing, and then get back to me:
http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html
>>Yes, that was the point I was trying to address. Do you honestly think
>>this makes sense, that a corporation can claim that they "lost" millions
>>of dollars in revenue because someone posted a song on Napster?
>
>Whether or not I think it makes sense is immaterial.
I beg to differ, if by that you mean it is not analytically important or
critical. It is certainly not metaphorically important or critical, but
there is nothing more material, given the immaterial nature of language
and interpretations of things, then whether it makes sense to you.
>It is what will be used
>in court, until someone manages to change the law either by getting Congress
>to change it or by getting the Supreme Court to rule the way you're arguing.
>It is, therefore, what a prudent person will assume the law governing his
>actions is.
Thus, my point, that therefore until it is tried in court, any
contentions about how it is unacceptable to the law are, to borrow your
word, immaterial.
>>Shouldn't the fact that they are obviously gouging the public (are you
>>saying the technology that made it possible to share a single copy of a
>>song with millions of people for very very little cost somehow didn't
>>cause the price of a copy of a song to drop several orders of
>>magnitude?) indicate that songs should be worth what people are willing
>>to pay for them, regardless of how much the profiteers might demand for
>>'legal' copies? People who download music from Napster are obviously
>>not willing to pay for those songs. The supposition that they "would
>>have" purchased a full-price copy is, frankly, ludicrous.
>
>So? Until people quit paying $16.95 for a CD, that's what a CD's worth of
>songs is worth. [...]
Such self-referential (value/price == value/worth) reasoning is very
difficult to overcome, I know. But any logical analysis shows that it
is an argument from ignorance, begging the question, circular logic, and
the whole array of other logical fallacies all rolled up in one
unfalsifiable, meaningless package.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
When faced with such a Gordion Knot, the classical solution is very
effective, and William of Ockam provides us the blade in what we now
call 'Occam's Razor'. Your aphorism equating the price paid to the
value received is moot, a useless assumption that denies not merely
physical evidence, but personal experience. Are you telling me you've
NEVER said, of something you've bought, whether it was or was not "worth
the money?"
In a free market, competitive price levels fall to costs of production
plus profit in proportion to value add. Being the only source of
something is not "value add", it is monopolization. While there is
nothing in copyright law which indicates that charging "what the market
will bear" is unlawful, and nothing in contract law or consumer
protection law that claims "profiteering" is unlawful, it is clear and
absolute in anti-trust law that monopolization is illegal.
Granted, determining which abstraction the situation can most
accurately, consistently, and practically merits is a judgement call,
requiring knowledge and reasoning, as objectively applied as is
rationally possible.
But the case for the legal results of clashes between anti-trust and
copyright are well defined in the reference I've provided: anti-trust
ALWAYS wins, in the end.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:51 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 May 2001 13:48:03
>On Thu, 10 May 2001 16:21:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 15:12:05
>>>On Wed, 09 May 2001 15:00:16 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 May 2001 16:11:11
>>>>>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:39 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>Protcting "expression of ideas" is protecting the right to express
>>>>>the ideas.
>>>>
>>>>No, "free speech" is protecting the right to express ideas.
>>>
>>>Yes. Your "No," however, is meaningless, since what you say after the
>>>"No," doesn't contradict what you are replying to.
>>
>>Yes, it does, Roberto. You may be unwilling to go beyond the realms of
>>strict logic (a delusion you've trained yourself for, and take pride in,
>>I know),
>
>Actually, I go beyond strict logic often, yet when I do, I know I do.
Did I say "unable"? I'm not sure if you're claiming if you're willing
in this case, but unable, or simply unwilling.
>> but I use reason, which allows for the obvious inductive
>>inference. It is a correct inductive inference; that 'free speech' is
>>exclusive of 'expression of ideas',
>
>I: A is blue.
>TMD: No, B is blue.
>
>That is stupid. You are simply saying something unrelated and assuming
>that because both things share a feature, they are somehow polar
>opposites.
That's rather rhetorically concise, Roberto; you are correct in your
analysis of the procedure. The flaw is in your inability (or
unwillingness) to go beyond the rational reduction of "A is blue" and
understand that we are discussing the *meaning* of things, not simply
the *definition* of things.
When dealing with abstractions, two "things" can be identical and
opposite. It is through the examination of these relationships, and the
related words needed to describe the relationship (in, theoretically,
the minimum number of words) that we discover whether "sadness" is
"blue", or "happiness" or an "API" "exists", or what have you. This is
a far superior process to the classical Socratic method, which can only
succeed in reducing the "meaning", as well as any hope for a concise
definition, to nothing.
It'll all be laid out in a book I'm currently writing; I'll let you know
when it' available, if you're interested.
>> in the statements just made. If you
>>missed that fact, then it means you did not understand it.
>
>Indeed I did not understand it. That could be because I am not fluent in
>english, because I didn't pay much attention, or because the statement
>is composed of baloney. Take your pick, I took mine already, and it
>is a cold meat.
Well, we're all really just fish flopping around in the bottom of the
boat, in the end.
Have a nice weekend. I'm going to try to get some writing done.
(Somebody 'guffaw' me, please.)
[...]
>Yes, all you write is quite boring. Your writing lacks flair, your
>vocabulary is strained, and your posts obtuse.
Guilty as charged. You're my beta tester; you gotta put up with some
bugs if you're going to participate.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
