> I do not.
Then ask, don't assume or twist.
> Since you are redefining words, it is not surprising.
I have shared the original dictionary meaning of words. I don't define
anything, I just stick to it. If someone else has invented a new different
meaning because it sounds pleasing ("free coffee") - blame them.
> The definition of freedom you list match the one I gave you.
Not quite. You added emphasis to something which doesn't figure at all in the
original meaning.
> They do not say "freedom means no limitation" (like you wrote).
What is 'unconstrained' according to you?
https://www.etymonline.com/word/constrain
> That is fortunate because your definition is useless: since there are
impossible things (going back in time, turning yourself into a tomato, etc.),
nobody is and can ever be "free" by your definition!
Freedom is inwardly. Just because you can't walk on the sun doesn't mean you
cannot be free. So let's not confuse freedom with outward physical
possibility. Freedom and free are greatly abused words today, highly
deflected from their original meaning. It is really difficult to discuss when
so many words in the language have been corrupt, so we must be very careful.
In any case "I control" and "I own" is not freedom. If "I control" was
freedom, then every tyrant is an absolutely free human being.
> Yes, it has: slavery.
No. You are still thinking in terms of ownership and control. Slave implies a
master (controller), as an opposite. In freedom there is no master and slave.
No controller and controlled. That's why there is no restriction or
limitation (constraint).
> So, you now recognize that there are "levels of privacy respects"? I mean
if it was 0/1, like you pretended earlier, writing "the least worse for the
moment" would make no sense.
We need words to talk. Both of us may have different background (cultural
conditioning) and may have differnt associations with the meaning of a word.
But the word is not the thing. So all the explanations I give and the
refernces to the original meanings are an attempt to establish a common
ground to avoid confusion. Otherwise we cannot possibly have a meaningful
discussion. Two parallel monologs are not a dialog. Details do matter but not
per se, they are just aimed to give the necessary depth to understand the
whole. The whole is what matters the most, not the fragment.
> Why is "the poor design" (of what?) the reason people are more at risk of
being duped by phishing?
The fact that the system is designed in a way which allows phishing to exist.
I already explained that with Windows and viruses.
> That is against the Terms of Service (see my reply to SuperTramp83).
Even so - nobody can stop people from creating 1000 nodes each storing 50
host names (just an example). Terms can change too. Everything can change.
Many years ago it was "against the terms" to say that the Earth was not flat.
> He believes in in the collective control of the software through freedom 3.
You see - when belief, faith, trust are used - this is the path to illusion
and there will always be a party exploiting this. The prove: the privacy
issue of IceCat. I have never excercised freedom 3, or 2, or 1 when testing
it. I was just sceptical (because I refused to trust another's test or
believe articles). Anyone can believe whatever one wants but facts are
irrefutable. And FWIW: just because RMS does or does not a particular thing
doesn't mean that this action is something sacred, absolutely right or that
everyone else should do the same. Otherwise the Earth would still be flat. So
let's not try to justify everything through the authority of someone. Of
anyone.
> We are all limited, i.e., nobody is free and can be free by your useless
definition of freedom.
Again: you are putting a different tint to the meaning and hurry to conclude
that the dictionary definition is useless. According to your tint freedom is
the result of absolute unlimited knowledge which of course is impossible -
knowledge is always limited. By not being limited free means no depency on
the factors which create limitation (including knowledge). Example: you want
to make a fire, you go and take some wood and a box of matches and burn it.
You don't need to be an expert in microbiology of plants. And it is a safe
thing to do. You may not have the tools to inspect it, it is pretty much
"closed source" (and at the same time not deliberately closed as in
proprietary) yet it is in no way invading your privacy and does a good thing
to you by giving you warmth and light. You also have the natural sensitivity
not to touch the fire which prevents you from burning your skin. At the same
time this natural sensitivity tells you to be carefull not to burn your
house. So you are pretty much an expert without having to read a whole
library.
The problem is that the computer is not like that. The ease of use reduces
sensitivity and puts the user to sleep. So although the house is on fire, one
may keep living in it. The very pile of complex information is an obstacle
which prevents the user from seeing the disaster. That's why F0-3 are not
enough. They are absolutely essential but we need much more than that.
