onpon4 - I doubt anybody needs the logic/debate class lesson, I'm sure we've all learned the logical fallacies before. I was absolutely equating software and art, in both directions. It's an opinion stance, and there's nothing concrete to argue there, just my own view.
Icerf - I'm not a troll. Economics suggest that people do not generally want personal responsibility for their goods and devices. If you've ever done consumer IT or phone support, you'll find that quite a lot of people get upset that your service 'let them' get into trouble. Example of that being Verizon customers forever complaining that the company 'allows' them to go over their data plan allowance. Oddly, they still don't switch to a provider like Ting who values freedom at all. The actual data to back up any of this is readily available to you if you care to poke around. You're looking only at what supports yourself though, so I wouldn't bet on that. I never once said people have a taste for abuse. You call it abuse. People who want it call it 'protection', 'support' and a number of other things. Right or wrong, the notion that non-free software is abuse by default is an ideological stance and not a factual one. You're in the position of attempting to Tell people what they want, rather than asking. And why? For their own protection, you say ... which sounds an awful lot like any tyrannical dictator. Freedom isn't freedom without choice. On Thu Feb 19 2015 at 6:19:48 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Even if software is art (I disagree with that idea entirely), it doesn't > follow that art is software. That's called affirming the consequent: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent >
