Linux-Advocacy Digest #582, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Linux programmers dont live on this planet! ("DES")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 03:31:53 GMT
On 20 Aug 2000 23:17:07 -0700, Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The meaning of the sentence you extracted from Max's paragraph (which I
>DIDN'T understand) seemed obvious as I read it in situ. He meant that
>the copies made in RAM as part of library/program utilization (which was
>the topic in discussion) were the permitted-without-licensing copying
>that 117 addresses and not the copying of section 106. Anyone trying to
>follow the discussion should have recognized the sentence as a
>shorthand (call it crude if you will) allusion to this thing we had
>discussed before. Duh.
>
I think in this discussion it is important to be clear. Max said
that copying into RAM was not copying in the copyright sense.
That explanation "works" when running a program is considered but
it just isn't accurate. The wording of section 117 is that such
copying into RAM is copying, but is not infringement if the
criteria are met.
Since at least some of the discussion probes around the limitations
involved in Section 117 and falling outside of the protection of
117 thrusts one right into the face of section 106, I think Lee
is justified in being very clear. The correct construction is
that the copying into RAM is clearly copying, but is not
infringement if the owner (and not a hired contractor or a licensee)
has made the copy as an essential step in using software.
>BTW, as one who came here to learn more about licensing from people who
>might be able to make informed comments and helpful references, I
>thought twice before encouraging you to follow up on your threat to
T Max seems to be in the mode of responding to posts rather than
expounding on new theories. I suspect if you and Lee were not
still posting, the steam would run out of this discussion.
As much as I've gotten out of you and Lee's thoughts, at this point
I'm somewhat disappointed that I haven't seen more well grounded
(in reality) opposition. I largely agree with Mr. Hollaars view,
but when he posts I learn more about copyright and intellectual
property law, but when I post I learn nothing. I'm sure Lee will
move on to new topics. Perhaps shortly he'll be correcting more
of my own goofy theories.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:38:19 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
>
> > > > > You're setting up strawmen again. I haven't said a word about the
> > > > > timeframe to pay off the national debt.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Upon maturity of the outstanding Treasury bills, you idiot.
> > >
> > > Why do you keep repeating that when it has nothing to do with anything
> > > I've said?
> >
> > It does---you're merely to ignorant to see the connection.
>
> It doesn't. Please explain how Bush intends to pay off the national debt
> while deficit spending. You seem to be arguing that he can. If you're
> not arguing that he can, then you're not arguing with anything I've said.
What makes you so sure he will be deficit spending? (At least, that his
will be any worse than Gore's.) Yes, he is cutting more taxes than
Gore, but he is also spending less than Gore on programs like health
care.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: "DES" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 03:41:39 GMT
I am an average guy who also got fed up with MS and decided to give Linux a
try. Being an average guy I guessed I would need help so paid Red Hat for
their 6.2 Delux version which came with telephone help for 30 days. Yes I
did RTFM and you know what I found!!! A whole new bloody language!!! For
those of you new to Linux; "Image" now means "copy", "Server" now means
"driver" etc. At least Mrs Gates little boy tried to make things easy for
us!
Give me a break, keep yor eye on your objective instead of trying to spite
MS. Make it easy for Joe Public.
Dave
PS I hope someone from XFree86 Org reads this, their installation
instructions are no help to me. What ever happened to step#1, step#2,.......
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:34:48 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> >> They've been under investigation, essentially, since the late 1980s.
> >> They've had a monopoly based on pre-load per-processor agreements and
> >> such since the mid-80s, at the latest.
> >
> >Yup. And they didn't get into any real trouble until the mid 1990s.
> >What does that tell you?
>
> That anti-trust enforcement is criminally lax?
>
> >> >Other companies that have been in trouble for similar tactics:
> >> >
> >> >Coca-Cola (which gets nailed from time to time for anticompetitive
> >> >practices.)
> >>
> >> To prevent them from having a monopoly.
> >
> >Nope. To keep them from using their monopoly position in many areas to
> >knock other companies out of business.
>
> They don't have a monopoly position. They just have a substantial
> market share. But without the ability to use it predatorially, they
> aren't a monopoly.
>
> >> Everyone knows you can get Pepsi at almost as many places.
> >
> >Mostly because, back in the 1970s and 1980s, Coca-Cola got slapped
> >around by the FTC for abusing their monopoly.
>
> No, for attempting to monopolize, or perhaps for monopolizing, either
> way, I assume they don't do it any more. But they still have a large
> market share.
>
> >> from the Microsoft case.
> >>
> >> I fail to see why a laundry list of companies who've had anti-trust
> >> trials is supposed to support the idea that "having a monopoly is
> >> illegal" is a radical statement.
> >
> >...and you still haven't come up with one single example where a company
> >with an existing monopoly got nailed by the Feds for just having a
> >monopoly.
>
> They all do. Microsoft did; just *having* the pre-load monopoly earned
> them a conviction under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Attempting to
> monopolize the browser market, as well, got them another. Finally, a
> Section 1 violation was determined for the tying.
>
> From the Conclusions of Law:
> See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966) ("The
> offense of monopoly power under � 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements:
> (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
> willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from
> growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business
> acumen, or historic accident.")
>
> I'm not sure if "Grinnell Corp" meets your criteria (though I still
> don't understand the criteria), but it seems clear (from this quote and
> the accompanying discussion) that the possession of monopoly power
> (substantial market share + capability of using it predatorially) is
> illegal if it was willfully acquired or maintained. Nothing about
> having to actually *use* it; merely willful acquisition or maintenance.
>
> >> The point is that once it is shown that a company has a dominant market
> >> share and *could* act predatorially, the *company*, not the
prosecution,
> >> has the burden of proof of showing they didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't
> >> use it, if they are accused of doing so.
> >
> >If that's your point, it's a bad one.
>
> Bad how? Bad you don't believe it (must I quote yet again?) or because
> you don't think it supports the fact that you need not *do* anything
> except willfully acquire or maintain monopoly power in order to be
> breaking the law, even if you never used that power?
>
> >In every case I cited, companies didn't get into trouble for a
> >*possible* problem - they got into trouble for actually taking part in
> >anticompetitive acts that were made public.
>
> Yes, but just because you have performed anti-competitive acts doesn't
> mean you are monopolizing. Did you research these cases to verify they
> were Section 2 Sherman Act violations to begin with? There are other
> anti-trust laws than the Sherman Act, and other sections in that Act to
> begin with, that don't have any direct reference to the term
> "monopolization". Perhaps what you are trying to say is that in the
> common parlance, the word "monopoly" means 'anyone who breaks any
> anti-trust law'. But that's a rather weak point, at best.
But the funniest thing of all is that you've wasted cumulatively an
estimated 5000 hours of your life on the subject and they are going to
skate. :-)
When they walk out of the higher court (in two years) vindicated of all
charges then what are you going to do with your sad assed life?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:53:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Colin R. Day in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> You can say whatever you want, that doesn't make it true. First, the
>> matter of ethics can determine whether something is "unethical".
>> Whether it is "evil" is a matter of morality.
>
>How do you distinguish between ethics and morality? I would treat
>them pretty much the same.
Ah, I'm glad you asked...
Here's my working definitions of ethics and morals:
Morality involves only your internal personal reasoning concerning
ethics.
Ethics involves your actions and their results.
Morality is internal, a personal choice which has no bearing on anybody
or anything outside your head. Ethics is the guidelines for human
activity and interactions. In the best of all possible worlds, your
morality guides your behavior, as does ethics, and that is why they are
so intermingled. But whether your morals are the same as mine is
entirely superfluous, or should be. The only question is whether your
ethics are the same as mine, and everybody else's. Civilization
requires that we have a common ethical framework. It does not demand
any common 'morals', and a free society makes no claim to desiring a
common *morality*, so long as there is a common ethical framework and a
common "ethic".
Most people, being taught in a religious tradition, never even realize
that ethics are not dependant on morals. Some quite different moral
frameworks (often related to metaphysical myths designed to deal with
what Dr. Paul Kurtz calls "the transcendental temptation") are used to
support substantially the same set of ethics. These ethics do *not*
actually change between cultures and societies; that is a post-modern
myth. The circumstances in which they are applied change, of course,
and so foreign cultures may be *perceived* to support something other
than the common human ethics. And there are some areas where our common
ethics are generally silent, and so we often mistake what is simply
"conventional" with what is "ethical". Also, we do not have a perfect
understanding (or anything more than a very rudimentary understanding,
for that matter) of what precisely these "human ethics" are.
There are two things we do know, though. 1) They are not related to
"human morals" by anything but a passing resemblance, and 2) They are
not "based on" religious or metaphysical morality, as evidenced by the
fact that different religions generally support the same ethics.
It isn't OK to lie, it isn't OK to steal, it isn't OK to murder. We all
know these things to be true without being taught. They are part of
what makes us human, and part of our "human ethics", and they have
nothing to do with divine dictate or even personal moral choices.
>I saw more below. I take you as saying that ethics is a science and
>that an individual's morality is his/her beliefs about ethics. But one
>could still speak of a person's ethics in the sense of that person's
>ethical beiefs.
Morals are conscious thought; the reason we decide. Ethics is concerned
only with the actions, not the 'reasons' for those actions, strictly
speaking. As such, they have nothing to do with "belief". If your
consideration turns to someone's 'belief', then you are crossing back
over into the realm of "morals".
[...]
>> And people responsible for an event might be acting unethically, but
>> that doesn't make the event unethical, only the people's actions. In
>> casual conversation, of course, this doesn't prevent us from saying
>> things like 'the Inquisition was unethical', meaning that people
>> responsible for it *may* be considered to have acted unethically.
>
>This is close to what I meant. It's just that I don't know the
>names of particular inquisitors.
Neither do I. My apologies for being pedantic.
[...]
>> >The context of an ethical decision would be the actor's, not the
>> >observer's.
>>
>> The ethics applied to that context should be considered that of the
>> actor's,
>
>not the observer's, you are right. The context, however, must
>
>> be defined by the observers in order to correctly observe.
>
>Could you clarify this?
I'll try, but you know how easily I start to babble...
Because of the "black box" nature of morals within ethical
considerations, we end up with situations as discussed here where the
actor may be considered to have a requirement to know something, or to
learn something they do not know. This seems horribly 'unfair', of
course, to the poor actor, who is trying to act ethically, and may be
unaware of some of the context of the situation.
That context is determined by the observer. The actor's context is not
useful for determining whether he acted ethically (in keeping with human
ethics), only whether he acted morally (in keeping with his own
understanding of human ethics). Since the determination of what
information *could* have been known by the actor but *wasn't* is
available to the observer, but not the actor, using the context that the
actor defined is simply second-guessing his morals.
So when we look at an Inquisitor, we can, safely, say "he should have
known" that torture was wrong. Not merely because we know it was wrong,
but because within his context *known to us*, that information was
available and he *should* have been both morally (his religion preaches
love and good-will, not torture and oppression) and ethically (screaming
victims leave little room for doubt that what you are doing is wrong)
able to learn that information. Potentially, within the actor's
context, this information was "not known" or even "incorrect". But
those would be *moral* decisions on his part, and you cannot use morals
to justify unethical activity.
I think that's the root of it right there: you cannot use morality to
justify unethical actions. Ethical actions, on the other hand, are
still ethical, whether they are an agreement with your personal morality
or not. In fact, you don't even really need a personal morality (well,
you always have one, but it doesn't need to make any sense) in order to
have ethics.
[...]
>> >> You can double-check whether someone
>> >> *thought* they were acting ethically, but you can't second-guess whether
>> >> they *were* acting ethically. If they have an ethical reason to make a
>> >> decision, and act in what they believed was an ethical manner, then no
>> >> retro-active 'blame' should accrue to them.
>> >
>> >Not good enough.
>>
>> Unless you have some specific requirement for retribution, I'm afraid
>> that's going to have to be good enough. Otherwise, you're acting
>> unethically.
>
>I wasn't doing it to punish people, the judgment I sought was
>in ethics, not law.
I think you were actually seeking judgement in morals, not ethics.
[...]
>> Yes, that is the question. But I'm afraid you're still too confused
>> with "morals", whether the actors thought they were in the right, which
>> in my opinion has no direct bearing on whether their actions were
>> ethical.
>
>I thought that you were saying this, and that I was questioning that.
Have I made any sense, or only confused things even further?
[...]
>> Not possible; they are not "her" ethics.
>
>What if the ethics underlying her morality is wrong?
Ethics do not underlay morality. Imagination underlay morality. Most
people incorporate ethics into morality (and confuse morality with
ethics), but a person can have a 'conflicted morality' which does not
match their ethical intent or actions. Like the Inquisitors. Whether
they were acting 'morally' or not is only their concern. They were not
acting ethically, regardless.
[...]
>> or did she merely fail to overcome her misguidedness?
>
>Implicitly, failing to question is still a choice.
I was not speaking of failing to question. I was speaking of failing to
find an answer to the question. Morality may be absolutely unforgiving
of human failures, but ethics needs to be a practical system, and cannot
afford such luxuries.
>> If every
>> authority she questioned provided her with no reason to doubt her
>> convictions (unlikely, but we must at least pretend it is possible), can
>> she be blamed for continuing in her misguided efforts?
>
>Probably no authority within the Church would have disagreed.
Probably so. Thus shifting much of the blame from her to the "moral
leaders" of her time. Poor thing.
Perhaps I shouldn't say "shifting", as it is more "magnifying and
redirecting" the blame. Because the Church would, then, I think, have
an even greater burden of judgement. They were not only acting
unethically, they were acting immorally (not in accordance with their
own [professed] belief system) besides.
[...]
>> Just how many years of other people saying "you are being ethical when
>> you do that" does it take to ethically and morally convince you that you
>> are acting correctly?
>
>I would hope that no amount of mere agreement would convince me.
>I'd hope to hold out for arguments for or against a position.
I appreciate your will and your 'moral fiber', but let's not
over-estimate our omniscience and under-estimate our social nature.
[...]
>> Again, I can't help but see this inexorably reduce to the question of
>> free will. Did she decide to cultivate her misguidedness? How is that
>> possible, given the term "misguidedness"? Did she choose to decide to
>> cultivate it? Did she decide to choose to decide to cultivate it?
>
>I would suspect that such cultivation is more an act of omisson than
>commission.
And thus it gains a lesser ethical judgment, if not a lesser moral one.
Perhaps even a vanishingly small one, being as how humans are both
social creatures (and rightly put some degree of importance to what
other's think of both our moral and ethical reasoning) and fallible.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:04:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>> [...]
>> >> >You see, you still don't understand. the "T" is not a representation
>> >> >of the effects, it's a representation of the bit itself.
>> >>
>> >> The affects are an abstraction;
>> >
>> >Oh, no. The effects are very concrete. They cause some electrons
>> >to go to one state instead of another.
>>
>> I think you meant "discrete", not "concrete".
>
>I think I meant concrete, as in "not abstract".
OK, so I tried. You're wrong.
>> There is nothing about an abstraction which makes it non-discrete,
>> per se. To suggest that bits flipping is not abstract is trivial
>> reductionism, entirely misrepresentative of the context of the argument.
>
>So, you say that bits in your HD are abstract? Amazing.
No, I didn't say anything about "bits in my HD". I said 'the sticky
bit' is an abstraction. A rather unamazing and unflashy one, but an
abstraction nevertheless. Mostly because you cannot tell me *which*
bit, precisely, of the million upon my HD, is 'the sticky bit'. You
certainly couldn't tell it on sight, at least, though you may be able to
follow directions to find 'it'.
Don't tell me you're having problems grasping the abstract
"abstraction". You know what they say about that, don't you?
>The "t" is not a representation of the abstraction, it's a
>representation
>of whether the abstraction is applied to one specific object.
I though you said 'the sticky bit' wasn't an abstraction?
[...]
>> There's that too-literal mind-set at work again. No, the functional
>> purpose is an abstraction, because it is not concrete. There is no
>> sensual data to communicate its existence to the user.
>
>Of course there is. You just use an instrument to read it.
>It's called a computer.
What part of "sensual data" didn't you understand? Perhaps the part
where it doesn't involve instruments required to translate it into
sensual data so that it can be perceived?
[...]
>Quick, how can a abstract thing (the bit, you say) produce
>a concrete output (the "t")? Could it be that the bit is
>concrete, and the t is just an abstraction used to make
>"seeing" the bit simpler?
"The" bit, "the" bit. You keep saying "the" bit, like it is actually a
specific number of electrons going a certain way in a certain spot...
>> The 'bit', wherever one wishes to point to it, is
>> whether or not you can delete files in the directory or whatever.
>
>No, that's the effect of the bit. The effect != the object.
>The bit itself can probably be defined, if you really want to,
>as a small section of magnetized disk.
Even after I explain your muddled thinking, you don't even bother
pretending to have read it. There are no objects, and the small section
is not what identifies the bit as 'the sticky one'.
You are not only a classic example of the engineer's mind-set (which
isn't a bad thing at all), you are pig-headed (which is).
[...]
>I remember when I didn't understand it. I was told "read the chmod
>page",
>I did, and now I understand. Whopee.
And if you think that was the entirety of the process, you are grossly
mistaken. I'm pretty sure you will not take my word on that, but
perhaps if I point it out now, you might remember it sometime in the
future when you can't figure out why everyone else seems to treat you
like a pig-headed elitist geek.
No offense; honestly.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:10:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Roswell appears to have been the result of some AF test apparatus
>> >escaping the test range.
>>
>> Well, that, and a fascinating display of human nature spread out across
>> more than fifty years.
>
>Everybody wants a religion... even if the religion is "bug-eyed guys
>with greenish-grey skin"
Well, that's a bit of an over-simplification, but it is the general
idea, yea. Everybody wants something to believe in. Can you blame
them? You, for instance, have this whole "ultra-libertarianite
conservatism" thing going....
[...]
>> >alternatively.... we are descended from same ?
>>
>> What? Space aliens?
>
>Who knows. We have a fairly complete fossil record of the evolution
>of many species...but none for man.
More selection bias, I'm afraid. We have a rather good fossil record of
the evolution of mankind. Who told you we didn't?
>Interesting, no?
Interesting: no. Not from a scientific standpoint. Within the
framework of the comments above concerning religion and space aliens,
I'd say it was mildly interesting, at least.
>We talk about "colonizing" Mars and such...maybe our existance
>on Earth was the result of a colonization?
>
>I have no particular belief...I'm just tossing out ideas for discussion.
I don't have much use for people with no particular belief. While I'm
not someone who likes to get involved in other people's morality, I
don't care for people who don't even know what they believe. I'd prefer
you believe something that is wrong than have no belief. Regardless,
you should be willing to modify your beliefs to fit your current
knowledge of reality without denial or perversion.
And a theory that we are alien to this planet is certainly a perversion
of science, to be sure. You're not a closet Scientologist, are you?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
