Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:It's called hindsight (Score 1) 144

by meta-monkey (#49188331) Attached to: Technology's Legacy: the 'Loser Edit' Awaits Us All

It's also useful in learning from the mistakes of others, and stilling our anxiety that bad things can happen to us, too.

It's related to the cognitive bias called the "just world theory." It's what makes people blame victims. Sometimes more appropriately than others, and our conscious is more "shocked" the "less culpable" the victim is. And why people get more upset about bad things happening to animals than most anything else. Even children because of the assumption the parents or the state is partly at fault for not protecting them.

When a child molester is beaten/killed/raped in prison, people don't get too upset. Well he did bad things. Had it coming. Still totally the fault of the guy who attacked him! But it's a Just World when bad things happen to bad people. Don't molest kids and you won't be thrown in prison and attacked. Sleep softly.

When someone associates with thugs, and the thugs turn on him and beat or kill him, well, don't hang out with thugs and it won't happen to you. Just World. Sleep softly.

When a man is walking through a dark alley at night carrying a bunch of cash and gets robbed, well, that was kind of dumb. Totally the fault of the robber! But yeah don't do that and you're less likely to get mugged. Don't leave valuables in plain sight in the car, either. Lesson learned. World's still kinda just. Be wary, but you can still sleep softly.

When a woman is raped after going out wearing a short skirt, maybe drinking, well that's totally the fault of the rapist. It's complete bullshit that a woman can't feel safe wearing what she wants and having a good time. But there's a still a lesson to learn to help you avoid the same fate. She did put herself in that situation, after all. Maybe don't party so much, bring friends, watch your drink. The world is not just, but maybe you can protect yourself.

When something happens to a kid, what the fuck man?! The kid has no agency, there's nothing he could have done to "deserve" that or could have avoided what happened to him! But...where were the parents? Where were the teachers? CPS? It is an unjust world where anyone would hurt a child. But maybe you can learn a lesson about protecting your kids in this unjust world...

But when something happens to a defenseless God. Go John Wick on their shit. There is no justification, there is nothing the puppy could do to deserve its treatment, there's no way it could defend itself, there's no one who "should" have been looking out for it. Sleep with one eye open because there are monsters in this shithole of an unjust world.

And I'm not saying any of this is good or correct! It's a cognitive bias! But it's natural and hard to overcome.

Comment: Re:Pandora's Box (Score 1) 448

But this case is black and white, so cheerleading is appropriate.

How about instead of blanket statements we look at individual cases and cheer or scold based on merit?

This is all free speech. Some speech is bad (violent and obscene comments to a teenage girl) and some is good (her dad publicly shaming the perpetrators). Don't get all hand-wringy about dad's good speech, just because "oooo things could also be bad." This is the same inability to make obvious value judgments that gets us TSA agents taking away little old ladies' nail clippers because terrorists might do bad things, despite the fact grandma is clearly not a terrorist.

Comment: Re:Net Neutrality (Score 5, Insightful) 112

by meta-monkey (#49091791) Attached to: AT&T Patents System To "Fast-Lane" File-Sharing Traffic

No. Treating traffic differently based on protocol is fine. It's called QoS, and that's all this is. Net Neutrality is about the source and destination of packets.

What they're doing is conflating the two to confuse people so they'll say "gee I guess some fast lanes are okay..." and give up on Net Neutrality when really all they agreed is that QoS is a good idea.

Comment: Not really the same thing... (Score 2) 112

by meta-monkey (#49091775) Attached to: AT&T Patents System To "Fast-Lane" File-Sharing Traffic

It wouldn't be a violation of net neutrality to completely squash all BitTorrent traffic.

When we talk about net neutrality, we're talking about treating the traffic the same regardless of source or destination. This is different from QoS where it's perfectly fine and useful to treat packets differently based on protocol. Yes, please slow down a web page load by a millisecond so a VoIP packet isn't dropped. One is noticeable, the other isn't.

And what's the source or destination of a request for (or seeding of) a BitTorrent file? The BitTorrent network. Doesn't matter which peer you're getting it from (on your end).

What this really is is a PR wedge in the door against net neutrality by making it seem like this is a net neutrality issue, when it isn't. "Just the tip...just for a minute..." "Oh, well I guess some fast lanes are okay..." And then they're giving it to you hard and deep.

Comment: Re:The FSF has failed (Score 2) 201

by meta-monkey (#49091695) Attached to: After 30 Years of the Free Software Foundation, Where Do We Stand?

I'm pretty sure that has been tried (by others) and did not hold up in court.

If he could, believe me, Stallman would.

You called Stallman a hypocrite, and love him or hate him...I can't think of anyone on the planet who is less deserving of that title. He is blindingly, crippling consistent.

Comment: Re:The FSF has failed (Score 1) 201

by meta-monkey (#49091513) Attached to: After 30 Years of the Free Software Foundation, Where Do We Stand?

How do you propose they prevent GCC from producing propriety software? Probably would if they could, but I don't think there's any legal mechanism that would allow that.

I'm sure there's plenty of case law wherein a toolmaker has tried to claim that use of their tool gives them rights to the things created with that tool, and have been shut down. I am not bound by a license from Canon for pictures I take with my camera, nor do I share authorship with Microsoft for something I write in Word. The toolmaker has no rights over what the tool user does.

So while they can not prevent someone from making proprietary software with GCC, they sure don't have to make it easy on them. I'm willing to bet if you submitted a module that would help enforce some DRM standard (binaries that won't run without a license file, perhaps) they would un-graciously decline to commit that module to the main tree.

Stallman and pals are under no obligation to incorporate everything anybody wants into their project. They can say no for technical reasons, for philosophical reasons (like they did here), because it's Tuesday or for no reason at all.

The only reason for them to commit the changes Apple wanted was to aid their less-free tool endeavors. The reason Apple wants to make open source projects under permissive licenses rather than libre licenses is so they can embrace, extend, extinguish. This is not Stallman's first time at the rodeo. We've seen this before. You "partner" with the open source community to bootstrap your project, get lots of talented development for it, pull talent away from competing projects, and once everybody's dependent on your ecosystem, start closing it off (or replacing) one piece at a time until it's just your monolithic, closed product. Why on earth would you want to help them do that? No, Apple, if you want to contribute to GCC, come work on GDB, under the GPL license, and we're happy to have you.

When the white man shows up on your shore, where nobody owns land, you don't teach him to grown corn and let him carve out "just a little plot..over bother..." in exchange for some baubles. You tell him to take his ass back to England, no matter how pretty the beads are right now. We'll stay savage, thanks, but free.

Comment: Re:The FSF has failed (Score 1, Informative) 201

by meta-monkey (#49090817) Attached to: After 30 Years of the Free Software Foundation, Where Do We Stand?

Perhaps Stallman and company could be forgiven for initially choosing a misleading term, but why haven't they made any effort to correct their terminology over the years?

Ehhhhh no, it was kind of the other way around. Here's a good article about the rebranding of "Open Source" away from "Free Software."

In the Beginning, everybody understood the "free as in beer and free as in speech" thing. To be honest, it's a wonderfully geeky nomenclature. Free has two (primary) meanings, both of which apply to our software! Using that one word saves bandwidth! But geeks are very poor at branding, or expecting other people to understand their precise use of words.

In the late 90s and early 2000s, Tim O'Reilly and pals redefined "free software" to mean what you think of today as "open source." They kept the "free as in beer" (design methodology) bit but jettisoned the "free as in speech" (social movement) bit because all that commie talk doesn't fly when they're trying to make a buck.

The FOSS community is not unaware of this, and has tried to counteract this with the word "libre," meaning "free as in liberty." But the damage is basically done. And besides, they were the Free Software Foundation first. Why should they have to change? They're not the ones who suck.

Note, in contrast, how vitally important precise and explicit terminology becomes to these folks when they want to receive what they believe to be adequate credit for "the GNU/Linux System". In that case, sloppy terminology like "Linux" simply cannot be tolerated.

No, like I said, the initial naming was good. It was Free. Free as in beer, free as in speech. That one word worked perfectly. Again, this is before the words were muddied to appeal to business interests.

They only call it "GNU/Linux" when you're talking about...GNU/Linux. Again, precise definition. You call your system "Linux" but all those commands you're typing, cp, mv, grep, are GNU. Linux is just the kernel. Android, however, is...the Android variant of Linux, and GNU makes no claim on it and doesn't expect you to call it GNU/Android because there's no GNU in it.

To me, their reaction to LLVM is the most telling sign I've seen yet of what's really important to them. It's all about ego.

No, absolutely not. What's really important to them is the principle of copyleft. That no, they will not compromise when it comes to the principles that free (libre) software must stay free (libre). Today candy, tomorrow shackles. In this world where freaking everybody compromises their principles, it's nice to see somebody who says "nope. Nope nope nope. This is what we believe, and we're sticking to it."

Did you read the rest of what I said about "embrace, extend, and extinguish?" Stallman takes the long view. I honestly have no idea what you're going for with the Apple bit. Apple closes their shit off, won't let you install what you want on your device, spies on you, hands that info to the government...they can take their "benefits" and cram them right up the ass of Steve Job's dessicated corpse.

"I'm not afraid of dying, I just don't want to be there when it happens." -- Woody Allen