Richard Stallman (GNU dude) resigned - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 02:47:49 pm
content: Richard M. Stallman resigned fromMITandFree Software Foundation(he was the president) yesterday, because of the controversy regarding his statements regardingMarvin Minskyand one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims.Most of the coverage claims RMS said Jeffrey Epsteins victims were "willing".He did not say anything like that.Like a typical scientist/engineer/technical nerd, RMS was objecting to the use of incorrect terms.(RMS pointed out that if A had sex with B, when B was coerced to do so by C,but B was likely presenting themselves as willing to A, it is accusation inflation and wrong to claim A sexually assaulted B in/as a public event. This was then picked up by Vice and others as RMS claiming that Epsteins victims were willing.)To me, this looks like us techy/rational-type people must stop trying to get others to use correct terms, because if we do, we are monsters and have to resign.I'm definitely guilty myself; probably have to resign now.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 02:54:44 pm
content: Just... wow.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 03:34:49 pm
content: When the hordes get all fanatical about something it is best to lay low and stay out of the way, otherwise they will roll right over you. It is not a time for reasoned discourse.Just today I was reading in Spanish news about some feminist group who argues that we should not eat eggs or chicken because "hens are raped by roosters" so that we can enjoy those products. It is a sad state of affairs but it seems humans need to have a cause and it is much easier for us to unite against something than in favor of something.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 04:27:38 pm
content: And people should not have children for the same reason

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 04:40:16 pm
content: Holy fuck the SJW's have latched onto this one hardEdit: the more I read into this the more I want to buy a house in the middle of nowhere and dig a massive fucking moat.

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 05:13:04 pm
content: Stallman knew quite well that his comments were political and had nothing to do with a dispassionate search for accurate language.It was a passive-aggressive way of attacking those who were accusing Minsky.This is nothing unusual for Stallman, who plays the detached, hyper-rational nerd, but has a history of angry tantrums.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 05:34:45 pm
content: Quote from: edavid on September 17, 2019, 05:13:04 pmI can't see it like that.He said what he said and it is there for us to read. I cannot see anything wrong with what he said. Maybe you can explain.A similar case is happeneing with Placido Domingo who has been accused of improper advances. Anyone who dares not pile on is accused of sexism. But he has not been accused of any use of force, only of making advances which the women were free to reject but didn't because they thought accepting them would advance their careers. But anyone who dares point out this in his defense is immediate accused of favoring the "aggressor".

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 05:38:42 pm
content: Quote from: edavid on September 17, 2019, 05:13:04 pmHow did you divine RMS's internal state of mind? You see, at the face of it, reading the email in question,accurate language-- specifically,accusation inflation--, is exactly what he is talking about.RMS isn't known for nuanced expressions or writing between the lines. He is known for his extremely direct and blunt approach, especially in his political statements. He does not hide his intentions, he states them up front.Marvin Minsky was RMS's friend, and died a few years ago. To me, just reading the texts at hand, it is clear that RMS just didn't want anyone to publicly accuse Marvin Minsky of sexual assault, when the facts at hand -- even the female victim in this matter -- do not actually claim he sexually assaulted anyone. RMS didn't do it "dispassionately", because RMS does just about nothing dispassionately, but he did it exactly in the same technical way I do, when I see things mischaracterized or terms misused.It appears to me that you answered without looking into the matter at all, purely based on your own emotions regarding RMS. That is the very problem here; the "reporters" are doing the same, and not actually examining what was written, only how it was received. Please, prove me wrong, and point out how you arrived at your conclusion.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 05:50:14 pm
content: Quote from: edavid on September 17, 2019, 05:13:04 pmYou are attacking his character when you should be looking at whether what he said is true or is a valid opinion. Attacking ad hominem is the recourse of someone who cannot refute what was said by that person.What do you have against him?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 05:53:03 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 17, 2019, 05:38:42 pmNevertheless RMS' statement reads as an excuse for a rapist. Especially because it starts with stating the accusations are untrue. And IMHO the accusations are true. Adults who have sex with minors are quilty of an assault.

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 05:54:42 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on September 17, 2019, 05:34:45 pmWhat you are missing is the context, and maybe personal experience with Stallman.I don't know how I can provide that, but surely you've seen similar situations in your own life? Angry nerd pretends to be "scientific"?Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 17, 2019, 05:38:42 pmThe only alternative I can think of is that he is so obtuse as to completely miss the point - and I can't accept that.QuoteI don't find it at all clear what Stallman was doing. It seems to me that instead of confronting the very serious accusations against Minsky, he raised a semantic point which is close to completely irrelevant. Stallman's focus on it is a classic passive aggressive move.QuoteI read as much of it as I could stomachMaybe you're right that it wasn't enough, and I am basing a lot of my opinion on previous experience with Stallman, but that's as far as I can go. I just think he was being a jerk and it's right that he was censured for it.

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 06:01:44 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on September 17, 2019, 05:50:14 pmHis character is the reason he had to resign. I don't have any interest in refuting or even discussing his statements. The fact that he brought them up in the context he did is enough to convince me that the right decision was made.

author: filssavi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 06:10:57 pm
content: Guys I like to bash SJW's as much as anyone else, but...Here we are talking about things that are so much outside anything even remotely debatable...there are so many wrong things on so many levels.First of all anyone with even half a neuron alive in his brain should know that defending someone accused of rape in realtion of a convicted rapist on technicalities and what is your personal opinion on the definition of rape is not good.Of course anyone is entitled to it's own opinion, that can be shared privartely with anyone the opinion holder whishes. however doing so publically is a completely different matter. Also I consider the mailing list in which the thread was posted, akin to a town square, as it is at least research-group wide, so no less than 900+ peoples (as per what their website claims) must have access to it, and i have great difficulty believing that RMS is close friend with all of them...I get that engineers are not good with interpersonal relationships, and as the stereotype goes would much rather be alone than with some other living being (a stereotype that i think is a load of bulls**t), however the fundament for a functioning society, is for people to know when to speak and when to shut up and keep their opinion to themselves, the absolute truth is not always importantNow if we are talking about the aging performance of voltage reference circuit or the bandwidth of an amplifier, there truth is of the paramount importance and we can discuss to our heart contempt.However if the subject is wether a 73 years old having sex with a 17 years old (when the age of consent where they were is 18) is technically rape or not the truth is much less important. I can safely call that man an appaling human being, that should totally have known better, even just for it's age.Now I get that probably RMS and Minsky were shurely collegues and probably (my totally not proven conjecture) friends, as after all they are/were both mit computer scientists. and that is very difficult to believe that someone you know and have interacted with for a long period of time is a bad person, but this is not an excuse

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 06:15:51 pm
content: Quote from: edavid on September 17, 2019, 06:01:44 pmI hope you don't mind if the rest of us discuss Stallman's actual statement.I read it as "It is possible that Minsky thought the sex was consensual. If so it wasn't rape." It was probably poor judgement for Stallman to make that statement, but it is hardly "excusing rape". Poor judgement is sufficient reason to fire Stallman or ask for him to resign. So is him being a jerk (if true). But that's not what the outrage is about -- it's about him allegedly excusing rape.

author: dnwheeler
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 06:17:01 pm
content: For those inclined to learn the truth, the full email thread included RMS's statement can be read here:https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willingIt's a conversation with a few participants speculating on the situation, acknowledging that they (and the public) don't know what really happened. Much of the discussion is specifically about the semantics of the words being used, and what meanings are associated with those words (e.g., the public equates "assault" with physical harm, whereas the legal definition if "sexual assault" simply means "unwanted sexual contact").The exchange also makes it clear that RMS knows the girl in question was being coerced: "We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that."The whole conversation was a fairly straightforward discussion of hypothetical scenarios and how the use of specific words influences the public.As an aside, at least one source states that Minsky turned down the girl's advances.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 07:49:09 pm
content: Quote from: filssavi on September 17, 2019, 06:10:57 pmA sane society acts based on evidence and reason, not based on third-party accusations.Your comment is a good example of the problem at hand, because Virginia Giuffre has not accused Marvin Minsky of rape. She has accused Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell of forcing/manipulating her to have sex with various men. She believes Marvin Minsky was one of those men, although she does not recall the date, month, year, season, or even how old she was at the time, just that the sex happened at Epstein's island. (Greg Benford says he was there at the AI conference on Epstein's island at the same time with Minsky, and that Minsky had told Benford he turned her down. Minsky himself is dead, and cannot defend himself.)(Do not forget that everyone fully agrees that Giuffre is the victim here, there is zero doubt about that. And that Epstein was a rapist. Absolutely no-one is defending Epstein. People like Minsky were connected to Epstein, because Epstein funded their research departments, and hosted conferences.)In the sexual assaults against Giuffre, the assailant is Epstein and/or Maxwell, not Minsky, because by the verydefinition of the term, they were the ones who coerced Giuffre. Minsky did not coerce anyone to do anything; his offense was something other than assault. That was basically RMS's point, at plain reading.Several members here, and a large number of people all around the world, seem to believe that making that point is so horrible, that one must resign from their life's work.I disagree. My sympathies are with Giuffre, not with the people who are second-hand offended and demand the crucifixion of anyone accused of being involved in that mess.As to RMS, I can see the very same thing happen to me. If I were him, I would have tried to point out the incorrect terminology (that just obfuscates the really important case beneath the surface turmoil), in pretty much similar ways. I believe using the correct terms is important in considering the matter rationally. True justice needs rational thought, not raw emotion.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 08:11:38 pm
content: No, the problem is deeper than that.1.) A few messy things came out, people (mostly women) were raped, sexually assaulted. Some of them decades ago. The guilty goes before court, they get convicted. Justice system works as intended.2.) About 10% of accusations turn out to be untrue. But if the media picks up your story, you are dead in the water. Career ruined, legacy ruined. You know, guilty unless he can prove otherwise?3.) Now, that step 1 is complete, they started attacking people, who were associated with them. Like they attacked Bill Gates as far as I recall, because he was having every few years a dinner with Epstein. How the hell would Gates know it? It is not like the Epstein would introduce himself as " Hi, I'm a rapist". So guilt by association?4.) They started going after people, who have opinion about the matter. Or having sane discussions about 2 and 3.5.) They go after you if you are not wearing the #metoo bracelet6.) If you dont voice your public opinion about it on facebook and twitter?BTW public humiliation? Cutting all ties with them? Outcast them from society? Or excecute them publicly by throwing rocks at them?Really, please tell us what how far are we supposed to go? Apparently whatever is written in criminal law, that's not good enough.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 08:20:48 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 17, 2019, 07:49:09 pmI am totally with you on this. I do not like witch hunts nor do I enjoy mob lynchings. I also realize that trying to be moderate in these issues is a good way to be found a witch and get lynched. Better lay low until the furor has passed. People like to see the powerful brought down and lives destroyed. There is no room for grey. Everyone has to prove they are harder on the witches or whatever enemy of the day than others.It makes me sad that when the mob demands blood there is no room for rationality. A man is tainted and those who were his friends disappear and he is left alone to face the mob. Nobody has the strength of character to speak up and say lynching is wrong.Placido Domingo is going through something similar and it is pitiful to see how people seem to enjoy tearing him down.Many years ago I saw an interview on TV which made a deep impression on me. A reporter was interviewing a man who was a very close friend of someone who had fallen in disgrace and who everybody shunned. The reporter asked about the disgraced person with the evident intention of putting the man in a difficult position and create drama. Let us see if he defends the indefensible... I was impressed by how well the man handled it by just saying and repeating in a heartfelt manner "he is my good friend, we are good friends". No intent to apologize or excuse, just a recognition of their friendship when everybody else was hiding and denying. I saw a man of principle and courage and it impressed me.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 08:25:49 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on September 17, 2019, 03:34:49 pmYep. Absolutely. You should now completely refrain from even touching any controversial topic publicly, especially if you're half famous.Sad thing with that is that either you follow this wisely and you just shut up - so opposing discourse becomes effectively silent - either you speak up, and may get your life ruined in a matter of a few days.No matter what the topic is, it sure looks more like dictatorship than democracy. Sad days.

author: filssavi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 09:56:16 pm
content: Guys we are talking about a guy that has written on his personal website (that is still up for now) that and I quote  (emphasis mine):QuoteThen 3 days ago when the whole thing blew up he issued a half-hearted apology, and I again quote:QuoteI for think that for one there should be not even the slightest fucking doubt that child porn=BAD, And that for someone his age and with no apparent mental health problem, to need someone to explain that is disgraceful at bestNow there are plenty more stories about that, that are summarised both in the ars Technica article  and especially in the pinned comments. Overall they don’t paint a good pictureNow A lawyer might be entitled to discuss legal definitions of sexual assault, sexual abuse and sexual harassment (which are three very different things, all three illegal) and to defend people’s accused of such acts, however when a person with such a long-standing history of behaviours bordering this acts themselvesThat is much differentAnd then we ask ourselves why there no women in STEM fields, there is certainly a societal issue, but certain peoplesReferences:https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.htmlhttps://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong)https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/richard-stallman-leaves-mit-after-controversial-remarks-on-rape/

author: techman-001
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 12:14:25 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on September 17, 2019, 08:25:49 pmAs the old saying goes, "He who is silent is assumed to agree"

author: techman-001
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 03:10:28 am
content: Quote from: filssavi on September 17, 2019, 09:56:16 pmAs a old man I always lamented the fact that I'd not live long enough to see a manned Mars colony, the invention of the small portable 1MW fusion powered generator, or faster than light travel.But I've lived long enough to see the one thing I never anticipated ... the decline of the USA thru the erosion of its core values, such as the *right to free speech*.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 06:23:07 am
content: To be fair, I think mob lynchings have always happened throughout history, everywhere. In the 1950s anyone not expressing rabid anticommunist views was deemed suspect. Charlie Chaplin had to leave America accused of sympathizing with communism. There is no room for nuance or for intelligent discussion. Each age has its pet topics. Today everyone has to defend homosexuality with the same fervor they had to condemn it in the 1950s. Each age has its villains and its heroes, its dogmas and its heterodoxies. What is wrong today can be dogma tomorrow but we are too simple to go into nuances. It is much simpler to follow the leader with a few simplistic notions. And if people's lives are destroyed then, so be it. Sad but that is the way it is.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 06:55:37 am
content: Stallman is an ass, he has always been and always will be an ass. He is the classic on-the-spectrum aspergers personality but worse, one who doesn't realise or doesn't accept thier limited understanding of societal norms, social interactions, appropriate behaviour, and that the world does not conform to strict legal definitions and contracts.Being an ass doesn't make his ideas and work in free software wrong, but he's still an ass.You can be aspergic and not an ass, if you recognise your limitations.

author: tocsa120ls
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 07:06:04 am
content: Stallman is 110% on the spectrum. I don't expect people like that to understand all this cultural bullshit the US is working themselves through now.What he did say was accurate. How it was perceived is another thing, and he will not care about that.By the way, wasn't Linus Torvalds outed from the Linux project because some neon-haired LGBTQBVFTSI put him on blast... for swearing?

author: OwO
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 07:30:05 am
content: Virginia Giuffre is a known and admitting liar:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/politics/trump-epstein-conspiracy-theories.html"The documents unsealed Friday also include an acknowledgment from one of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, that an earlier claim she made about Mr. Clinton visiting Mr. Epstein in the Caribbean was untrue."While that doesn't necessarily mean her other accusations are false, I think it's imperative to take her words with a massive grain of salt. The media and the mob target anyone who dare question the "victims", and it's sad that much of the popular commentary just go along with it. I just hope that there exists a "silent majority" who is still tired of all the SJW bullcrap and will continue to pick whichever president will combat the trend of political correctness.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 07:30:27 am
content: Quote from: filssavi on September 17, 2019, 09:56:16 pmSo, a person should be evaluated by their philosophical opinion and not on their actions?No. That is totalitarian thought policing. Have you no understanding of where that leads to? We have enough historical examples to know better.If we go by your suggestion, shouldn't we fire all politicians in Europe, especially Greens, who in the eighties campaigned for legalization of certain forms of pedophilia? This is well documented, and many of those proponents are still in office.What about those who suggest cannibalism as a solution to climate change? That was in Sweden this year, and not a joke.What about those who support socialism or communism, that has caused the deaths of tens of millions of people in the last century or so. Shouldn't we shun them, too?

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 09:06:33 am
content: Quote from: sleemanj on September 18, 2019, 06:55:37 amI do not know the guy, never heard of him, he may well be an ass BUT maybe the world needs more and not fewer people who speak up against the witch hunt du jour.

author: techman-001
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 10:20:40 am
content: Quote from: soldar on September 18, 2019, 09:06:33 amRichard Stallman is the father of the GNU Free Software project announced in 1983 and the inventor of the EMACS editor.https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.htmlThe GNU project is responsible for Gcc without which Linux wouldn't have been possible back in 1991, nor the free *BSD's all of which relied upon it for many years, tho nowadays LLVM and Clang have a lot of momentum.So many systems rely on Gcc and G++ including Arduino etc. The Forth I use is compiled by GAS, the GNU Assembler.I believe that Stallman got RSI while writing Gcc and had to hire a secretary to dictate the source and finish the program.Love him or hate him, all we who use Open Source owe Stallman a great debt of gratitude.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 10:38:14 am
content: He'll score a geek job elsewhere, probably already lined one upor he's already rich on royalties and does not gasor there's something suss going on that we'll never find out about, so why stress about one dude walking..?

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 12:39:24 pm
content: BecauseFirst they came ...I make the same kinds of points RMS did, not for any political reasons, but because I truly honestly believe that using accurate terminology is important in keeping to truth and to rational modes of thought and communication when discussing important or sensitive things.If someone with his track record can be ostracized for his opinions, what hope do I have? None.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 02:28:53 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 18, 2019, 12:39:24 pmUnfortunately...That said, people with some amount of fame are targetted first (maybe you are famous? I dunno). You probably noticed that most people (mainly men) that are targets for this ARE famous and generate jealousy and envy (and consequently can be ripped off of either their job, image or money, or a mix of all this). Funny how random joes don't really seem to interest the politically-correct, feminist, hysteric crowd. Uh. Am I implying that many do this out of some kind of interest (not necessarily just financial), and not just for justice or fairness' sake? Yes I am.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 02:45:23 pm
content: QuoteSure this person is no longer employed, right? It's an enormous liability for the company making such threats. HR would have a field day.He did two things wrong.- He defended someone accused with in the epstein debacle.- He speculated about the allegation.He did however made one valid point that should spark more discussion about the umbrella term "sexual assault". However, right now it's a important time in history unwrapping the garbage that has always been hidden under the table.Pressuring to remove him is a move based on emotions. Him giving in either shows plans for retirement or worse.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 05:27:25 pm
content: Some say that Minsky refused the offer by the girl, but if he did accept andshould have been able to tell that the girl was underagethen Stallman's objections are in effect defending statutory rape (it's called "age of consent" for a reason.)If it was not apparent that the girl was underage, then I agree with Stallman's objections to the terminology used to castigate Minsky.But the issue of beliefs vs actions is a difficult one. Should Stallman be fired for his beliefs? In this case, probably. Not because he believes them, but because he is the public face of the FSF and a spokesman of a sort for MIT. If he were just some rank and file researcher or worker then his beliefs would be irrelevant (as long as his actions were legal), but given his prominence in these organizations, his public expression of these beliefs reflects poorly on the organization and will likely damage fundraising and other public-facing operations. So for that he could be fired.

author: FreddieChopin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 07:16:41 pm
content: And nothing of value was lost. In my opinion he was the Hitler of open source community

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 10:25:28 pm
content: Well to be fair GNU/Linux probably does make the trains run on time.I'll get me coat.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 10:34:01 pm
content: Yes. GNU is cancer. I spend a lot of my time eviscerating it and arguing with licensing problems and bloat.Give me a BSD with LLVM toolchain, ZFS, sensible MAC and ACL support, manpages that aren’t half in GNU info and a boot process which doesn’t involve copulating goblins any day.

author: Macbeth
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 11:09:07 pm
content: As a Brit where the legal age of consent is 16, and knowing that Epsteins Island is part of the British Virgin Islands and so has the same common law which is actually pretty conservative compared to our European continental cousins with ages of consent as low as 13, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Americans are obsessed with <18 year old statutory rape.In the UK two people can get married and have children at the age of 16 (with their parents blessing). They can fuck outside of marriage without parents blessing, and there is no upper age limit. 73 year old fucking a 16 year old is perfectly fine legally (pretty disgusting morally).Indeed we only had an age limit of 21 for homosexual (male) sex. (Lesbianism was never illegal in the UK). Nobody enforced that arcane law for casual gay teenagers in my day, but Tony Blair insisted on lowering the age of 21 to 16 purely so he and his decrepit old rich friends could then fuck homeless 16 year old twink rent boys with impunity.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 12:05:49 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 17, 2019, 02:47:49 pmVice has a history of attacking open source and DIY supporters, basically yet another garbage mass media. The "good" news is that they're apparently on the decline.Quote from: soldar on September 17, 2019, 03:34:49 pmLook up factory farming and few would still want to eat what comes from such a dirty place.

author: amiq
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 01:14:50 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on September 18, 2019, 10:34:01 pmDoes BSD have a reliable ZFS now?

author: techman-001
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 01:19:03 am
content: Quote from: amiq on September 19, 2019, 01:14:50 amFreeBSD has for the last 10 years, yes

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 05:22:23 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on September 18, 2019, 10:34:01 pmWell, I definitely disagree. However, I do like that you and others who disagree are speaking out about the problems with GNU or Linux stuff, because that is the only way we can see things from multiple angles, and become better. I definitely don't want a world where there is just a single OS.In RMS's case, everyone seems to forget that Marvin Minsky is not even being investigated, even less accused of any crime, by any court or law enforcement agency, nor even accused of rape or assault by the victim herself. It is purely outrage by third parties, who do not even care about the facts, only about their own emotions and initial surface appearances, and who are gleefully happy to twist statements to suit their own outrage narratives.I am fucking disappointed at the support of such idiocy.Personally, I suspect RMS decided it was no longer worth fighting the free software fight anymore. The FSF has definitely been overrun by social justice warriors -- just look at the "code of conduct" mess instigated by non-programmers and sensitive snowflakes deeply offended when their shitty code was laughed at --, so maybe there is just no community left to defend free software for, anymore.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 07:17:41 am
content: RMS has been a general principled activist for about 15 years now. He doesn’t care about FSF etc. Look at the shit he calls out on his web site. He’s generally on the right side of the fence. I can’t find any points to argue with. Better to walk away than go down with it. I don’t know if anyone remembers Brendan Eich’s eviction from Mozilla as an example of a similar situation but regardless of opinion even if I personally disagree with it, it shouldn’t affect your association or employment.We’ve turned into a sensationalist society and that’s dangerous. Back in the old days I’d go and have a nice discussion with the doomsaying preachers in Cambridge city centre. At no point did they get bundled off and tossed in the river for their views, even if they were clearly insane, which is where we’re heading.On licensing, my point is there needs to be a truly restriction free platform out there. GNU looks after the end user at the cost of restrictions. BSD looks after the middleware user and the end user. Politically speaking I’ve contributed to many open source projects and the prevailing attitude is better among BSD licensed products as well. But as mentioned we need choice.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 07:58:49 am
content: Fully agreed. (I do use various licenses myself, even though one might call me a Linux proponent. See, I am fully aware that someday, I might have a reason to switch to say FreeBSD. Just because I have one positionnow, does not mean that position cannot ever change.)Without freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, there is no freedom of choice, because there are no choices.The sensationalist outrage society will not accept anything other than the one approved one.That is, of course, absolutely totalitarian...It's like news anchors who get fired because they drop a "fuck" in a live stream. It's just a word; it does not create anything in the recipients' minds that isn't already there.It does not "dirty" ones mind, it just brings up whatever associations and concepts already exist in that mind. It is communication, not black magic.As I've said before, it is important to letopinionsrange to the truly sick and offensive, without ostracising the people involved.Otherwise, we'd still live in mud huts on the savannah. It isthe actionsthat we need to base our actions on.In the Epstein case, nobody seems to care aboutwho knew of the underage girls being exploited, but did nothing. They're just chasing outrage and painting scarlet blame across anyone even remotely associated. That won't fix anything, nor deter the other exploiters doing the same now or in the future.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 08:11:53 am
content: The last point is a good one to mention in context. Due to a fatal and universal flaw in human culture, when someone points the finger of blame, you need to always ask the person who is blaming to justify themselves not the blamee why they are being blamed.All this shock and horror detracts from the balanced reporting on the investigation as well which is the usual media circus around these sorts of things. As for why no one reported this before, you're either in with them or threatened by them, much like the Jimmy Saville mess here in the UK. And in with them usually involves the media, in that case the BBC. If anyone wants a good historical account, read further into this:https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/26/bbc-bosses-cover-tracks-savile-2012-andy-kershawThat's where the Epstein case will go as well. Really none of this stuff in this thread even matters compared to the core story but it has taken our attention considerably away from it.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 09:32:52 am
content: Richard Stallman also outraged people for hisrhinophytonecrophilia, which means to perform nasal sex with dead plants.Not kidding. Most of the people enjoy doingrhinophytonecrophilia, too, just that they don't like to admit they arerhinophytonecrophilists!

author: tocsa120ls
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 10:04:06 am
content: He also has hydrophobia. Which is a fear of water. Multiple stories of him talking with somebody outside, it starts to rain, he screams and runs for cover.As I said. 110% on the spectrum.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 10:38:32 am
content: Just to be clear,rhinophytonecrophiliais a joke. It means smelling a bouquet flowers.When one smells a bouquet of flowers, one inhales the pollen from the dead flowers. Pollen is flower semen, and it end in human nostrils when the dead flowers are smelled, so one is performing nose sex with dead flowers, AKArhinophytonecrophilia.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 10:54:40 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 17, 2019, 05:53:03 pmIt seems you did not bother to actually read what Stallman wrote. And if you actually read it but consider it as rape apology, I can only think about you as SJW who doesn't care about facts.EDIT: BTW when you start naming just about everything as rape, actual rape crime severity becomes diminished within bunch of nonsense. Thus serious disservice is done to actual rape victims who's voices won't be heard or taken seriously.

author: techman-001
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 11:25:59 am
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on September 19, 2019, 10:38:32 amYeah I got that but the important question is"how many SJW's does it take to get a joke" ?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 02:22:44 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on September 19, 2019, 10:54:40 amAgree. Sure, Stallman often has kind of an "emotionless" way of expressing ideas, something which MANY people have a problem with, because actually, most people are not looking for facts and logics, they tend to favor emotions and keywords. Just how human beings function.Quote from: wraper on September 19, 2019, 10:54:40 amFully agree. Has the number of rape crimes decreased ever since this rage of naming almost any interaction between men and women a rape has started? Just look at the figures for the country of your choice. The answer is generally: not at all. Again is their goal to make things better for society? Nope. Not in any provable way at least. Their goal is merely to get heard.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 02:59:52 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on September 19, 2019, 10:54:40 amYou are falling in the same trap as Stallman. Lost in technicalities and a semantic discussion. Meanwhile it has been well established that adults having sex with children is harmfull for the children involved and hence there is the legal ground to call it an assault. But please continue your quest for a semantic discussion.

author: kamtar
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 04:35:55 pm
content: Read it, and didn't find anything that much wrong with it. It got so big because somebody is bored at twitter and has nothing better to do then to find something to be angry at.you should be able to talk about such stuff without fear that you will lose your life's work.Even if you think that he was excusing rapist, and what? Just because the news says something, just because somebody is sentenced you are forced to believe it?If it was his friend and he believes that he wouldn't do something like that, why shouldn't he be able to express it?Not saying if it's okay that he had to resigned or not.. just that these emotional witch hunts are sooo annoying.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 04:54:55 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 19, 2019, 02:59:52 pmAs a non native English speaker, I just looked up the word "assault" in a few dictionaries, just to be sure about what it means, and no, it is not what you are saying. The word "assault" does not mean "anythingthat is/might be harmful", so you are in mistake.Again, no idea what was really happened there, just talking about the meaning of words according to their dictionary definitions.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 05:05:00 pm
content: The guy is definitely somewhat weird. Look at the conditions he set for speaking.https://github.com/ddol/rre-rms/blob/master/rider.txtThere is all sorts of weirdness in there.

author: FreddieChopin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 05:21:28 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on September 19, 2019, 05:05:00 pmWhy would anyone even want to watch some nerd eating crap from his feet

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 05:27:54 pm
content: Safer than a kebab shop!

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 05:35:52 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on September 19, 2019, 05:05:00 pmSome juicy bits of Stallman's requirements:QuoteEccentric I would say.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 07:43:05 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on September 19, 2019, 05:35:52 pmThere's one important item missing from his list: a tinfoil hat.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 08:07:36 pm
content: Resigning over a fucking VICE article?It's never been a secret that RMS is a massive nerd and borderline asshole but I didn't expect him to be such a pussy.As an aside, glad to see the sodom of the 20th century finally getting what they asked for

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 08:12:02 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on September 19, 2019, 07:43:05 pmYeah. But I frankly don't see the point of trying to suddenly expose his whole life, quotes, attitude, whatever, things sometimes from over 20 or 30 years ago. Seriously...Do people miss the middle-age public witch-hunting or what? Perhaps some would like to put Stallman on a torture wheel, filmed and broadcasted worldwide, in 20 different languages?

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 08:16:13 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on September 19, 2019, 08:12:02 pmYou are barking up the wrong tree, dude. People who whine about something somebody said 20 years ago will always exist.What I really don't understand and hate about America is something else: how enough people can possibly give a fuck about those clowns to make it matter.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 08:23:30 pm
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on September 19, 2019, 04:54:55 pmThe result of an assault is harm. What more is there to explain? And then there is the legal definition of assault which may be different then what is in a dictionary. All in all these kind of discussions should happen in a legal context in a court of law. BTW Stallman's claim the sex was consentual is a pedophile's number one excuse to have sex with children.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 08:37:13 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 19, 2019, 08:23:30 pmFundamental logicYou failed to explain how "A causes B" somehow implies that "any instance of B is A". We believe you are wrong, as a matter of general principle.Besides, let's not get into the colonialism and white supremacy of your claim that there is something wrong with sex with "children", which you probably define as "less than 18 or perhaps 16 years old". Plenty of cultures do that around the world.Though not exactly in the same manner as Epstien et al

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 08:41:31 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 19, 2019, 08:23:30 pmJust because there is harm does not mean there was an assault. I do not know where you get that idea.Quote from: nctnico on September 19, 2019, 08:23:30 pm1: This is not a court of law (just in case there was any doubt).2: The legal definition will vary with jurisdictions. What jurisdiction are we talking about? Can you provide citation to the legal definition in that jurisdiction? Because otherwise you are just forcing us to accept your definition.Quote from: nctnico on September 19, 2019, 08:23:30 pmYou have missed the argument being made by a mile.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 08:51:23 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on September 19, 2019, 08:12:02 pmThe guy is highly eccentric. Which is his constitutional right. It is also funny. Kind of reminds me of Mr. Monk.His eccentricity has absolutely no bearing on the accusations of apology of molestation of minors which I believe are unfounded but that aspect of his personality shows why he is not the best person to present things to others. I mean, we have a guy who in his written presentation for speaking contracts feels the need to include the type of music he likes and "Don't help me cross the street, I know how to cross the street on my own".How would you consider an application letter that included "I can cross the street on my own"?I feel somewhat sorry for the guy who stepped on a viper's nest without knowing what was coming.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 09:09:11 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on September 19, 2019, 08:51:23 pmAlright, that's fair enough. Yes his personality doesn't "help" him here, but I don't think that should ever really matter when it comes to being accused like this.Like I said, many people don't react to what someone really *says*, but to HOW they say it, to a couple keywords, and all the non-verbal cues. That's a well-known fact.In oral presentations, the content itself only matters little, except maybe if you're just in front of high-profile scientists, or a bunch of nerds.In written stuff, obviously the non-verbal cues are not there, but many people still read with a lot of shortcuts, thus the importance of keywords; they will favor those over the logical link there is between them. We can see this even on internet forums.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 10:25:04 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 19, 2019, 08:23:30 pm17 yo is not a child anymore and <1 year away from legal age in most places. Without asking for ID you simply won't know if it's legal or not. For example in Japan which is developed country you can marry at 16 with parents consent. Or in North America:QuoteI don't justify it at all, just saying that things are not black and white, there are shades of grey. And calling him rape apologist is simply activist nuts as there doesn't seem to be any indication of rape to begin with.Are you a rapist if you got a random hooker on a street and later it turned out she was 17 and coerced to sell herself by people you have not ever met? I don't think so. Is it immoral? - yes, illegal - yes, should you be prosecuted - probably, is it assault/rape - no.

author: techman-001
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 11:14:23 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on September 19, 2019, 05:05:00 pm

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 11:30:12 pm
content: Yes, it seems being a genius and being eccentric often go together. I suppose people who are more focused on being social are less focused discovering the truths of the Universe, and vice versa. When you are busy discovering the truths of the universe you do not care so much if people dislike you. You probably see people from a more "mechanical" point of view.Many geniuses in history have been not so good with social relationships. It probably feels lonely when you have few or no one who can share your genius.Columbus knew a lot about the sea but he managed to antagonize pretty much everybody he came in contact with.Cortez was the opposite: he could charm and talk anybody to his side. He was the ultimate politician. When the governor of Cuba sent an army against him he just talked them over to his side.Social relationships are essential for success.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 11:31:52 pm
content: Lots of brilliant and useful people are strange to the point of weirdness (and well past that point in some cases). They can be a great asset to society and organizations -- just not as spokesmen. If Stallman had become a public relations disaster for MIT or the FSF then they had every right, and probably an obligation to fire him, or at least to quarantine him.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 11:33:14 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on September 19, 2019, 10:25:04 pmI think you are in for an unpleasant surprise if you figure out in how many jurisdictions you'll (legally) be seen as a sex offender in such a case. On top of that: there is no court in the world where the 'I didn't know' defense is going to get you out of trouble.

author: techman-001
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2019, 11:46:30 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on September 19, 2019, 11:31:52 pmI'm surprised that neither MIT or the FSF were sheltering Stallman from himself as his condition is well known, even to outsiders.I suspect that there is more to this story, politics, money, takeovers etc.Now that Stallman is gone, along with his intractable attitudes about Free software, what will happen I wonder ?Who will have the time and brilliance to spot changes to laws that affect Free Software, or see Free Software takeover attempts at their early clandestine stages ?Linux is *all* about money now, the old easy days when Linux was a nothing burger in the eyes of mega companies like Microsoft are long gone. Companies are making BILLIONS from Linux, it's hot property.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 12:13:49 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 19, 2019, 11:33:14 pmThe thing is that you can become a sex offender because of committing starting from sexting and ending by raping. The problem is you don't see a slightest difference between those things at all, just as mad SJWs.QuoteIt might very well make a huge difference. If not exonerating (which happens way more often than you think), then severely reducing punishment. Even murder conviction may result in order of magnitude different punishment depending on reasons crime happened, intentional/non intentional being one of the most important. Don't confuse it with not knowing the law not exonerating from punishment.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 12:33:54 am
content: Quote from: wraper on September 20, 2019, 12:13:49 amOf course it does. I think he confuses "ignoring the law" and "ignoring facts". Yes pretty much everywhere in the world, you're supposed not to ignore the law. That was not the point. You are OTOH NOT supposed to know everything in a particular situation you're in. Knowledge and intent are of course major factors in any court decision. Fortunately! If not, there would be no need for trials, lawyers and judges. All crimes would get sentenced automatically as long as the offender is known!

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 07:07:54 am
content: And RMS's point was that although that person committed some sexual offense, it was not assault.Think about it. You are doing here the same thing that got RMS to quit. Do you feel safe?

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 07:39:07 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 20, 2019, 07:07:54 amWell, just to be sure I don't post under real name anywhere Americans can readBesides, RMS did another thing that you may not realize he did. He said those thing in America, whose cultural elitesare a corrupt pathology, ridden with destructive hedonism and exploitation of naive dumb youngsters, all sold to the masses under the brands of "freedom" and "love". It seems even Americans are getting tired of it, or at least feeling some consequences of it.Stay out of America. Don't adopt American ideology. Don't let friends become liberals. You will be OK

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 07:44:26 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 19, 2019, 11:33:14 pmThis is factually wrong. And the legality of anything is not the topic or subject of this thread no matter how hard you try to make it.Stallman said that getting favors from someone who is coerced by the person receiving the favors and getting favors when the person receiving the favors believes it is done willingly, even though in reality they are coerced by a third party, are two different things and one is worse than the other.I cannot see how that can be denied. Running a red light on purpose and running a red light because the driver didn't see it are not the same thing. Maybe he'll get the same ticket anyway, but they are not the same thing.We are discussing Stallman. Stallman is not giving a legal opinion and your trying to make a legal issue is just trying to take the discussion to where you think the guy looks worse. Stallman did not have sex with anybody and is not under investigation or indictment. Please drop all this legal pushing. That might be the topic of another thread but not this one.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 08:15:55 am
content: Quote from: magic on September 20, 2019, 07:39:07 amBut.. my career is in the academia: I want to develop better molecular dynamics simulators for use in materials physics, especially difficult to model stuff like corrosion resistance and mixed short- and long-term phenomena (involving mixing different types of simulations for the same system). I'm 43, so a career change at this point is pretty late.I.. I have to work with liberals. I admit, I like it, too. But... Although I am told I am a good public speaker, in private I voice my opinions freely (mostly because they are just opinions to me, and are easily changed by a good argument), and frankly, put a foot in my mouth by accident quite often. Before this social justice era, I got several times into trouble for speaking the truth, when fudging the facts would have been "politically correct". So, I even fail being PC! Yet, I do good work, have wide experience, and happily work with anyone; it's not like my prejudices or built-in preferences affect my work (or my hobbies like helping people on the web) in any way.Yeah, I'm fucked, too.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 08:35:10 am
content: I would not say I am old but let's say I am only semi-young and as decades pass I have seen the object of public fanaticism change and it makes me realize that this too shall pass.Decades ago mature men chasing much younger girls was seen as a normal aspect of biology.Charlie Chaplin famously liked very young women and he had a relationship with Oona O'Neill who he married just after she turned 18. He was 36 years her senior. Geraldine Chaplin said her father today would have been in deep trouble for his taste in young women.But at that time communism was all the scare and Chaplin was accused of not being anti-communist enough and he left America in disgust, never to return. The fact that he liked teenagers was never a concern.Times and cultures change but a lot of people think the values of today are laws of nature. They're not.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 12:18:17 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on September 20, 2019, 07:44:26 amA couple of years ago a similar case in the Netherlands got a several dozen men convicted as sex offenders even though the girl in question agreed to have sex. Several got jail time.Stallman's failure is not to investigate the subject matter thouroughly enough before making dumb statements about how a crime is less of a crime because the criminal didn't know he was committing a crime.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 01:21:18 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 20, 2019, 12:18:17 pmI am so glad that most people are much more reasonable than that.It's funny that the same people who have zero tolerance for infractions to their culture are vociferously opposed to other cultures doing the same thing. Woman severely punished in Someplacistan for minor infraction! Outrage! Savages!The same type who did the 50s communist witch hunt that made life miserable for many whose only sin was to not be anticommunist enough.People like that are the ones truly dangerous to a civilized society. The ones who would silence dissent or even questions.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 03:08:28 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 20, 2019, 12:18:17 pmYou mean, one should not object if ones friend is posthumously accused of sexual assault or rape, while thepossiblecrime was having consensual sex with a 17-year-old, without knowing that she was coerced by a third party to offer him sex -- or "massage", as she said in her deposition? The lack of coercion, as in she propositioning him for sex, makes a huge difference with regards to statutory rape laws, if they happened to apply here. Furthermore, said lady does not remember any details like the date, time, or her age at the time, only the location; and another person has stated that they were there (at the only time the friend was at said location), and that the friend told that other person that he turned her down? Especially when said lady has never accused him of rape or sexual assault, having only named that friend as being among those she was coerced to "massage" or have sex with, by Epstein and Maxwell?What the damned kind of hell world do you live in? I definitely don't want to live there. I value facts and reason more than emotions, and cannot live in a system where justice is based on emotion, and not on evidence and rational thought.The saddest thing is that RMS quitting does nothing to help this case; quite the contrary, in fact.When these emotive people clamoring for bodies to burn at stake have had their pounds of flesh, they are sated, and are not really interested in going after the true culprits: those who knowingly participated in the coercion and abuserepeatedly. These true offenders, like Ghislaine Maxwell (the "madam"), and the politicians that frequented Epstein's Lolita Express flights, seem likely to be able to just walk off, without any kind of punishment. That is not right.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 03:47:54 pm
content: A witch!https://youtu.be/yp_l5ntikaU?t=30

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 04:00:46 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 20, 2019, 03:08:28 pmThe best help in such a situation (when being a public figure like Stallman) is hiring a lawyer, getting the facts straight and making a politically correct statement which doesn't read as an excuse for a rapist. Stallman isn't a lawyer and yet he found it necessary to start a semantic discussion about what may or not may not count as an assault. There are law makers and judges for that purpose. Nobody needs Stallman for that.QuoteThat depends entirely on where you live. In the NL such a situation is still a criminal offense. Again: 'I didn't know' is never a valid defense. I really don't get why some people have so much difficulties to see that. You are supposed to know the law. That can be very helpfull. For example: nowadays it is very easy to get a several hundred euro fine if you sit or eat/drink at the wrong place in Italy .QuoteWell, I think in the case of Stallman this was the last drop in a very large bucket.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 04:41:01 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 20, 2019, 04:00:46 pmFuck that. If there is no ongoing court case (and there isn't and has never been against Marvin Minsky regarding the matter at hand), Iwillvoice my opinion.If one is not able to do that, you live in a totalitarian society, where only politically correct statements are allowed.The court of public opinion based on emotions and not reason or facts is not a court, but a lynch mob.Quote from: nctnico on September 20, 2019, 04:00:46 pmYou keep repeating that as if it has some relevance here. It does not. There is no "I didn't know" defense!The key is that Marvin Minsky is not accused of sexual assault, because V.G. has never claimed he coerced her; she has only said that Epstein and Maxwell have.Statutory rape is out of the question, because at the time Marvin Minsky was where the sexual offenses are said to have happened, V.G. was 17. At the time, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the age of consent was 16. (It was 16 until 2017, when it was raised to 18, with a similar-age exception.) Currently, the age of consent is 16 in Netherlands and many other European countries also, so this is nothing extraordinary.So, even if Marvin Minsky had sex with her, it was between people above the age of consent. There is no reason to assume Marvin Minsky knew or could have observed that she was coerced (because she approached and propositioned him, not the other way around), and V.G. has indicated no coercion by him in any case. This excludes sexual assault based on coercion.Thus, the possible offense Marvin Minsky may have committed, is something like not understanding that the other person, while above age of consent, was coerced by a third party. RMS's point was that equating that to sexual assault is wrong; it does not describe what happened.You keep claiming that making that point is somehow wrong. I do not believe that, nor do I accept that. Making that point is only wrong in a totalitarian regime, where only Politically Correct opinions are allowed to be expressed; because there is nothing unlawful or threatening in voicing that opinion. Just like it is perfectly okay to suggest that human cannibalism may be a solution to the climate change. It may offend someone, but if it does, it is their personal problem, and not something the society should act upon.In any case, at this same time, in the same country, there is a presidential candidate, a former vice president, who is seriously fond of accosting, kissing, and smelling the hair of very young-looking girls. He isactingthat way, not just expressing an opinion. How is that a lesser offense, compared to voicing an opinion about the unfair characterisation of a dead friend not accused of any crime by any law enforcement or even by the victim, only by third-party social warriors?

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 05:25:36 pm
content: Quote from: magic on September 19, 2019, 08:07:36 pmI guess this was just the last straw. I didn't know this, but in his opinion, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" should be legal. See his own webpage:https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.htmland some years later here:https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 06:17:53 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 20, 2019, 03:08:28 pmWestern Europe / America (it's more or less the same).Their supposedly educated elites are completely sold on totalitarianism and micromanagement.Americans these days don't even understand the concept of natural rights. Think about that for a moment in the context of US historyThey don't understand that people are free because there is nothing you can really do to stop them from doing what they want, except for letting them suffer the inevitable.They don't understand that people are responsible for themselves because there is nothing you can really do to stop them from suffering consequences of their actions.They don't understand freedom of speech is a good idea because it's better to know what others are up to before they actually do it.They believe they can organize their societies around a bunch of central decrees issued by Experts, Lawyers and Politicians and all will be good.America betrayed the principles that kept them going for two centuries and won't last much longer unless they get their shit togetherAlso daily reminder that co*****ism was invented in the West, not in Russia.Quote from: FrankBuss on September 20, 2019, 05:25:36 pmHardly out of line for a hippyIt's been said many times that commies and hippies should be sent to reeducation gulags, but the thing is, Westerners generally disagreed and let them run amokSo I don't understand what changed that him saying bizarre things now somehow means he can't be the head of his pet foundation. Even if you support gulags, just send him there and leave him alone once/if he is reeducated and returnsAnd Westerners supposedly are tolerant...The whole story in short:Somebody said some shit on the Internet. Let's fire him.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 07:25:39 pm
content: Quote from: magic on September 20, 2019, 06:17:53 pmIf he's the one in charge then there's no reason at all. Just saying and thinking unpopular things is generally not an actual crime even here in the USA. If others are in charge, and they want to get rid of Stallman because he is causing the foundation a lot of public relations grief, then that's their right.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 07:41:03 pm
content: Stallman is just a tiny fly on the cake, people in the know says there is loads of academia people on the string to be fired and even gettin indicted. Well, well lets see , Lawrence Krauss the well known pussy/bob grabber peddo island visitor first out, lost his Origin project and got fired, twice, then bicker about it on twitter with his fanbois! Ah, also known to be the big defender of Epstein while he was in jail the first time. The "list" of top academia defenders of Epstein is amusing, lots of creepy folks in that one. Mr Joi Ito had to resign from MIT btw due to Epstein, well it goes on and on. Peculiar how so many of Epsteins friends are into AI, neoeugenics, trans-humanism, neuro biotech, quantumcomputing all outspoken liberal globalists TWO/NWO btw ,etc, etc.Epstein of course killed by CIA and or Mossad. Maxwell and Jean Luc in hiding or already dead.Nutting is over until the fat lady sings

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 07:57:23 pm
content: Quote from: MT on September 20, 2019, 07:41:03 pmAs long as they get indicted because of their actions and not by opinion or association, I'm all for that. Too often people just close their eyes from this shit.That said, do note that Epstein did fund a lot of research. Marvin Minsky, for example, wasn't Epstein's friend, just someone who participated in a conference hosted by Epstein. I don't know exactly, but Epstein probably funded some MIT projects too. While Epstein was a shitbag, some of his money was used for good purposes. Stallman wasn't Epstein's friend, and only tried to defend Minsky, not Epstein.Quote from: MT on September 20, 2019, 07:41:03 pmIt does not match their modus operandi at all; it would have looked like heart attack due to stress, if they had done it, with the entire episode on CCTV. It looks much more like someone with deep pockets, as in spending a couple of million on this, has paid off both the prison officials, as well as the actual prisoner/warden who offed Epstein. The reason is obvious: to keep their own ass or ass-ociates from jail. (Not just to silence Epstein; the violence was necessary to tell everyone else in the know what to expect if they speak.) I bet it was one of the high-ranking US politicians with lots of Lolita Express flights.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 20, 2019, 10:57:39 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 20, 2019, 04:00:46 pmYou still did not get it has nothing to do with knowing the law. It was already said that committing a crime non intentionally is completely different thing from not knowing you break the law.For example, knowingly having sex with a minor and not knowing it's illegal and having sex without knowing she is minor are two very different things with very different punishment. Often covered by different criminal codes of the law. Not to say different from moral standpoint. But sadly you think both are exactly the same.Also seems you think that mentioning that crime which can get you in jail for decades (rape) and something that you can get you in jail for a few years at most, if at all are not the same thing, somehow justifies crucifixion of one who voiced that opinion.

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2019, 12:12:09 am
content: QuoteCome to think of it are you talking about colonialism or communism?

author: FreddieChopin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2019, 10:52:18 am
content: NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator Simon for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.An optional additional explanation is:

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2019, 01:39:03 pm
content: Quote from: MT on September 20, 2019, 07:41:03 pmBecause he might have tried to build some very extensive, elaborate blackmailing scheme within an intellectual community, that he then may have tried to get too big to fail. It failed.This is how every organized crime usually tries to grow, pull in many people into a crime, while keeping up some woo-woo pretense, then extort them in manipulative ways. The latter part might even come in the form of favors and support for whatever they were onto by extorting other parts of this group.Now this system is about to crumble and some people are on the edge of their seats about it.No idea how this should be related to RMS, he might or might not know. If this is really just about commentary he made online, he might inadvertently have done it about his bosses, which triggered them.In no way this is justifying pedophilia or prostitution, that was the crime and such a system would not work without it being illegal as pressure. And btw. such systems can come in plenty of shapes, like underage looking adults and such.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2019, 05:02:22 pm
content: I'm a bit of a Carlin fan. This was from 1990.https://youtu.be/o25I2fzFGoY

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2019, 09:13:44 pm
content: Oh come on, Stallman isn't part of any pedophile mafia. Too naive for that. He is a garden variety radical liberal, that's why he defends prostitution and pedophilia and argues against statutory rape and regret rape.He also believes that people shouldn't be having families but write Free Software instead. He probably never even looked at those "females", regardless of ageAnd he is an idiot for resigning. Trump became president by showing the finger to the SJW outrage crowd. A few days ago the biggest YouTube game reviewer has been called a Nazi by American newspapers for what must be the 100th time. No one cares.The only legitimate reason would be if he is ashamed of himself because he actually knows that Minsky knew... Oh well.

author: FreddieChopin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2019, 07:39:44 am
content: NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator Simon for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.An optional additional explanation is:

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2019, 10:06:40 am
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on September 21, 2019, 11:37:30 pmThankfully, the guy has that thing called "a website" so we don't need to speculate about his reasons.QuoteQuote from: Nominal Animal on September 20, 2019, 07:57:23 pmYou don't understand leftists. As an intelligent and rational borderline psychopathI understand consequences of my actions and I would harm people only if I decide it's a good idea overall, knowing well in advance that they will be upset.But that's not how leftists work. They are mentally incapable of harming people they don't consider nazis. That's why they always believe themselves morally superior to others.Instead, they rationalize everything they do. I'm sure Epstein had some very good explanation why the girls are actually grateful for the privilege of his loving attentionHe probably went to great length to cut them out of his life once he dumped them so that he didn't need to see that some end up hating him.Then reality caught up with him and also the shame of what may come out during his trial and what it means to his buddies so he tried to off himself. He really tried, a few weeks before his death. They put him on suicide watch as a result, but later it had been lifted for unclear reasons and he died shortly afterwards. It's entirely possible that the only external influence which "helped" him was somebody convincing the prison psychologists to take him off suicide watch. And even that may have been an accidental snafu due to understaffing or whatever.That being said, the drama and conspiracy theories is a good thing. America needs to question their whole value system and the moral character of their entire elites, from all those Epstiens and Weinsteins to Trump and Billy C, instead of just sentencing a few scapegoats ratted out by Epstein and giving themselves a pat on the back because the system works and bad apples have been weeded out.And LOL, I thought that Lolita Express is some Pizzagate meme but there is a Newsweek article about it.

author: dave j
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2019, 11:05:11 am
content: NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator Simon for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.An optional additional explanation is:

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2019, 11:23:05 am
content: Quote from: magic on September 22, 2019, 10:06:40 amMaybe you don't need, but I do.Anyway, nobody cares about that speculation of mine, including myself, so I just deleted it.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 22, 2019, 03:36:46 pm
content: Quote from: magic on September 22, 2019, 10:06:40 ami am not sure how conspiracy theories help anyone. Questioning the facts as presented is one thing, coming up with alternative realities asd having some religous attachment to them is bad news for everyone.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2019, 04:35:41 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on September 22, 2019, 03:36:46 pmI think you are confusing narrow-mindedness and conspiracy theories, Simon.I like conspiracy theories. I don't mind entertaining them as unlikely but possible, because doing so means I must consider what basis the theory has. I have zero religious attachment to them. In fact, there are several I've argued both for and against, just to uncover the reasons someone has for the opposite opinion. Some have "leaps" that give me a mind-twist, something akin to the feeling on a roller coaster, and I enjoy examining that.They have definite value in keeping ones mind open, but not so open your brain falls out. By entertaining frankly ridiculous conspiracy theories without falling into the narrow-minded hole of believing them wholesale, one cultivates a critical mind that can see how much bullshit people spew out, either because they are paid to do so, because they believe in it themselves, because they misunderstand, or a mix of all those. This applies to "reliable news sources", too. Reality beats narratives.If you look at how quick physicists for example are at shooting down silly propositions, you'd be surprised how many of them have read e.g.Timothy Goodor evenErich von Däniken. They don't like to admit to it in public, because most of public is so narrow-minded they do not understand that reading or understanding something you do not agree with can be interesting, or that playing with ideas you do not think are feasible in practice, is worthwhile. (Put another way, just because we have those books on our bookshelves, does not mean we believe their contents; we justlike themfor various different reasons. That seems hard to understand for many. The same applies to conspiracy theories.)

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 22, 2019, 04:43:37 pm
content: i don't have a problem with different opinions but conspiracy theories never seem to hold water and people will deeply beleive in them. I had a guy from Fronius the solar inverter come to configure my gear and he was a total nutter. Beleives that some family controls the whole world and that transmitter stations used for research are being used to manufacture global warming. Conspiracy theories start with an assumption and then try to find facts to fill in their gaps. It's the wrong way round to start and in legal circles is called guilty until proven innocent but as they will never listen you will never prove anything to them. Flat earthers? I mean seriously?

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2019, 07:00:42 pm
content: It sounds to me like it isn't the conspiracy theories that bug you, but the nutters who tolerate zero criticism about their beliefs, and spout them as absolute truths whenever given half a chance!Put another way, if you had a cow-orker who did good job, but on their home computer and on their free time examined all NASA feeds for unidentified phenomena, and believed they had seen extraterrestrial crafts in said feeds; would you be able to work with them? How often could they bring it up before it changes from an odd hobby and unconventional beliefs to annoying nuttery?For myself, I tolerate oddities much more than social media addicts. I find unconventional hobbies and beliefs interesting, but talk about how wide Kim Kardashian's ass is right now, almost intolerably dull.If someone evolves with their hobby or beliefs, instead of repeating the same-old-same-old, I don't mind; but I am just not interested in third-party social happenings, or listening to the same speeches about crystal frequencies day-in, day-out.(As to RMS, I definitely think his social skills and opinions were odd, but not nuts. I don't have to like him to appreciate his work.)

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 22, 2019, 07:15:19 pm
content: Well I'm not impartial to UFO's myself. The problem is that conspiracy theories are different. They take an accepted situation and turn it on its head. So there is a radia transmitter system or two around the world. It is stated that it is for a certain purpose, it was designed for that purpose. Yet this guy who whos diddly squatt comes and tell me it is used to manufacture global warming for some economical gain of some rich family. He tells me that WW2 was predicted and manipulated by a certain family, he beleives in over unity and although not stating it explicitly tells me he is developing a fuel cell he gets more out of than gcoes in. Everything is a scam to these people. everything is not what it seems and the government or some other secret powerful body are out to get you.i don't have a problem with facts being examined. i have a problem with people spouting nonsense and bringing their own canned evidence that they found on the net.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 22, 2019, 07:18:43 pm
content: You know, someone had the nerve to dig up some photos of the twin towers being rewired. Allegedly it was the twin towers, it was a picture that looked like the 70's or 80's and you could not actually see the location. But the person making the video pointed out these boxes labelled "littlefuse" and even showed a screen shot of their website of electrical fuses and then went on to say that this was proof that the twin towers were rigged with explosives. I mean seriously? I am supposed to take this talking genital seriously? She ignored all of the facts staring her in the face and came up with her own simply using the facts as a backdrop but not actually discussing them.

author: guenthert
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2019, 08:20:14 pm
content: Quote from: FrankBuss on September 20, 2019, 05:25:36 pmwut? wut? wut?Quote from: FrankBuss on September 20, 2019, 05:25:36 pmAh, he writes there: 'The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.'He leaves out his opinion on whether coercion can actually be determined in the case of bestiality, child pornography or pedophilia (he makes some suggestions for the case of necrophilia). I think it's quite obvious that, at times, he wrote (and probably said) things he wouldn't have, had he thought things through. He is after all a physicist, computer scientist, expert programmer and software activist, not a lawyer and there clearly emitting his personal opinion outside his core expertise. He isn't alone in that and I don't think that's sufficient grounds for banishing him.He also has a quite quirky sense of humor, seehttps://stallman.org/articles/texas.html

author: Buriedcode
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2019, 12:44:32 am
content: Quote from: Simon on September 22, 2019, 04:43:37 pmTo be fair thats how the mind works. It's confirmation bias and no-one is immune - its why we have the scientific principle and try our hardest to mitigate its effects. The difference I think with the "conspiracy theory" crowd is, they assume that anyone questioning them has an agenda, and so side-step any criticism of their view. That means all evidence either confirms their idea, or is flawed.Sadly, we're all prone to it, with those who consider themselves "rational" being the worst.

author: splin
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2019, 01:39:49 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 19, 2019, 08:23:30 pmDammit! You just seriously bent the needle on my insinuation meter!!!You *are* the Witchfinder general and I claim my £5!PS. Just pontificating, but if really pushed, I'd conjecture that 99.99% or more of accused Witches "claimed that they weren't".

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2019, 04:39:31 am
content: Quote from: magic on September 21, 2019, 09:13:44 pmYou misunderstood me regarding Stallman, i talked about e.g.this article about Epstein, and various other ones.RMS comments are not the core of the problem (they are comments... opinions), but at least it is a fact that people around him used to benefit from Epsteins donations/donations Epstein funneled. It will take a while, but by experience it is just a question of time until it is uncovered how or if things are connected.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 23, 2019, 07:15:57 am
content: Quote from: Buriedcode on September 23, 2019, 12:44:32 amthat is what I meant. They are selective with facts and can't debate the subject properly because it's their way or it's yet another conspiracy. There is plenty wrong in the world but most of it is in your face and not as covert as they think. But it gives them a sense of control over a world they have no control over when they think they are "in" with knowing something that others don't.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2019, 10:59:17 am
content: Quote from: Simon on September 22, 2019, 07:18:43 pmNo, of course not. But it is not the fault of the conspiracy theory, it's the people who latch on to an idea as a holy belief, instead of examining things critically.This is exactly why (IMHO) Nietszche said "God is dead". Instead of people changing, they just latch on to other ideas, whatever happens to fit their narrow minds, and base their worldview on that. When god dies, people find another. Hell, you could probably start a cult where letting your left foot touch the ground is a cardinal sin, and some people would believe that that gives their lives True Meaning.People like RMS are able to consider ideas and theories on the level of what they might do to society in general, instead of on the level of "how would I feel about this". This is the core difference, and very similar to (but unrelated to) the difference between people-oriented and thing-oriented people. (To be clear, the narrowmindedness and latching on to whatever theory or belief, is also a completely separate issue; I do not think there is much correlation here.)To them, opinions are not set in stone, but are swayed by convincing arguments. They are more like observations on how the human world works, or would work better.However, to do that, one needs a way to express those ideas, opinions, and theories in a precise way. The only tool we have for that right now is language. That is why this sort of people insist on using precise terms with defined meanings, and oppose emotive "you-know-what-I-meant" misterms.So, it's a very human issue. There are boobies who spout nonsense, because they don't understand, and other boobies believe their spoutage as The Truth. Yet, it does not reflect anything on the spoutage itself (which could have a rational basis, even if twice removed), only on the boobies. Trying to decry the spoutage (say, by instating Youtube filters to make them harder to find) will do nothing, or even enhance the spouting boobies; the only truly positive action is to help people learn how to not be a boobie, how to critically examine spoutage, and how to not latch to any single belief or opinion as The Truth. Everything else is just shouting on top.The difficult thing is to separate a single-minded boobie from someone who considers things critically.It is doubly difficult, because any given person is likely to be able to think critically about some things, but at the same time is an utter boob about others.

author: FreddieChopin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2019, 04:52:55 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 23, 2019, 10:59:17 amTruth be telled if everyone acted rationally then in 1939 Britain would just say "whatever, not my business" to Hitler and he'd conquer all of EU. Remember that US wasn't so eager to go to war until they got rekt at Pearl Harbour.Very often it's the best to leave logic aside and just go emotional. This way you can manipulate more people to your cause.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 23, 2019, 05:01:44 pm
content: Can you quite you diversions of the topic.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2019, 09:29:08 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 22, 2019, 04:35:41 pmThen why have they let string theory go on for thirty years if they're so good at quickly shooting down silly propositions?

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2019, 10:20:19 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on September 23, 2019, 09:29:08 pmBecause string theory is interesting math, not a silly proposition. (The only silly proposition about it is calling it "physics", before it has been used to make even a single prediction.)

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2019, 10:26:45 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on September 23, 2019, 05:01:44 pmWhat do you actually mean, Simon?And no, I am not being snarky; it is a honest question. There are several ways one can interpret that, and I guess the likeliest is to drop an 'e' and add an 'r', but not being a native English speaker, I just don'tknow. (Plus, whenever I reread that, I get this mental image of a prim English upper-class lady calling us "you diversions of the topic" for intruding on her tea-time, and cannot help but burst out laughing. Yeah, my sense of humour is wonky. But, I am still asking this as a honest question!)

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2019, 10:39:12 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 23, 2019, 10:20:19 pmYou're certainly right about that. String theory is complete nonsense that happens to have generated some interesting math. Unfortunately, it has sucked money and resources for several decades now that would have been better applied to other research.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2019, 01:44:45 am
content: Stallman at his paranoid best:

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2019, 07:06:30 am
content: Paranoid but not far off the mark. I wouldn't say that all proprietary software is evil but most of the mainstream proprietary software is.You ultimately get what you pay for. If you want cheap, you either prepare to DIY or sell your soul to the Devil. Some will defend the latter as a legitimate contract by consenting adults, good for them

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2019, 08:35:40 am
content: The disappointing bit is when you pay a lot of money for something and find out its evil and shit. Which is basically the entire enterprise software market.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2019, 08:37:54 am
content: Stallman is correct in each and every word or idea. We say he's paranoic just because we refuse to consider the worst outcomes of collecting data.Just look at China's social score, and how they use peer pressure to steer the society however they like. That's more than "1984" predicted.Then, it doesn't need to be a villain's malefic plot, from the beginning to the end, just to collect your data and control you like in a dark conspiracy, or something. Not at all. But if the data is there, sooner or later someone will take advantage of it.A few decades ago, whoever was owning the press was owning the power.Now, whoever owns the data, owns power. It's about having access to others mind, and deliver to them certain messages. If you repeat a lie a thousand times, people will believe it. This is not just a saying, it is how mind works. Very easy to explain after fiddling with neural networks training, and considering that we learn not only intentional, but we also learnunintentionally and continuously, thus unintentionally adjusting our beliefs to what we "hear" the most.It is more easy than one think to "mind condition" or "brainwash" a person. Sometimes this happens unintentionally, as a side effect of some other non-malicious type of training.We are at the point where voting for major decisions like brexit or presidential elections are steered through facebook, tweeter or even memes.It's so sad when people blindly repeat "I have nothing to hide". You have, just that you don't know that.The only thing that keeps me not going rogue against data harvesting is the fact that collecting data has a good side, too. It shows patterns that can be used for good things, e.g. avoiding traffic jams, understanding disease spreading, training AI systems, optimizing energy production/distribution and so on.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2019, 10:39:24 am
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on September 26, 2019, 08:37:54 amMaybe nothing to hide today.https://medium.com/@hansdezwart/during-world-war-ii-we-did-have-something-to-hide-40689565c550

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2019, 05:36:08 pm
content: Quote from: magic on September 26, 2019, 07:06:30 amNo software is evil. Software may have been created for an evil purpose by an evil individual or organization, but software itself is just a sequence of machine instructions and data and cannot be evil.Equating software and evil is just as dumb as equating guns and evil.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2019, 05:51:37 pm
content: I'm pretty sure my father's laptop is haunted by demons. It sometimes turns itself on to install Windows updates by itself

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2019, 06:50:29 pm
content: Quote from: magic on September 26, 2019, 05:51:37 pmNope, it's just haunted by Windows.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2019, 08:02:29 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on September 26, 2019, 05:36:08 pmJust wait for this

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 12:52:30 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on September 26, 2019, 05:36:08 pmIndeed, software is like guns : both can be used for good and evil purposes.It's universally agreed that guns should have some restrictions to reduce their "evil" use. By your own argument, you are saying that software should have restrictions to try to prevent or reduce use for evil purposes.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 01:38:12 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on September 27, 2019, 12:52:30 pmAlready have. We call such software trojans, worms, viruses, and so on.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 02:09:33 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on September 27, 2019, 12:52:30 pmPro tip: the poster you responded to is an American

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 03:10:51 pm
content: Quote from: magic on September 27, 2019, 02:09:33 pmSo? Not every American is a rabid gun nut. I just pointed out that an inanimate object cannot be intrinsically evil, and guns are the inanimate objects that most often get painted with this broad brush.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 03:16:43 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on September 27, 2019, 03:10:51 pmSure, but wait until enough progress has been made with AI...Oh, and also, let's try and define evil. If we carefully avoid the religious approach, it basically means the opposite of "good" or better and most often: "well-meaning". Sort of implies intention. Can a machine have intention? Now that's philosophical. But I guess we could answer yes to that in some cases (and not concerning a gun!)

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 03:34:35 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on September 27, 2019, 03:16:43 pmPlease give me an example of a case where a machine has intention. And I mean now, in 2019, not in 2119 (or whenever AI advances to the state where machines gain sentience).

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 03:52:21 pm
content: Before starting to throw rocks at each other about what is"Good"and what is"Evil", let's take a step back and examine the concept of Good and Bad.1. There is no such thing as good or evil, in itself. Good/bad makes sense only in the context of thereceiverof an action.2.Goodmeans what suit one (or suit the goals of one).3.Badmeans what doesn't suit one.Again, there is absolutely no imaginable example of "something" that is good (or bad) in itself. We were conditioned to think good/bad really exists by itself. NO. There is no such thing like absolute good/evil no matter what. It's all about the goals.I ate today. This was GOOD for me and my goals, and was EVIL for the chicken in my soup.There is no such thing like a good that stays good no matter for whom. Let's try to find an example of something that is good no matter for whom. There are no such example because good and bad are just words to describe how much something helps (good) or stay in our way (bad) of achieving some random goal we are after.To think about that in a funny way, where would end up a bad masochist, in Hell or in Heaven?

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 04:09:16 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on September 27, 2019, 03:16:43 pmPhilosophy is like middle management: when you get deep enough into it, it will generate its own work for itself in perpetuity, without generating anything tangible, or any kind of answers outside those that require more philosophy/middle management. "Good" and "evil" are definitely at that depth.Me, I prefer to try to apply a small subset, ethics, plus game theory, when exploring for answers that can help in real life. "Enlightened self-interest" is a concept we could teach kids at a young age, as a rational basic guide for acceptable behaviour. Another concept that is important to me is "complexity of interaction", but that goes too close to religion to discuss here.To circle back to the topic at hand, the reason I respect RMS's work is that he has consistently been defending the rights of the end users, and even the opinions he has expressed on the web or emails, are clearly written with the intent of benefiting most people. (Clearly? Yes: if you examine his writings, he expresses opinions on what would make for better tools and interactions between people, instead of what he would personally prefer. Well-meaning applies.)I find it hard to believe anyone could honestly label himevil. Yet, the vitriol targeted at him was massive, much worse than say against people who break the law.For example, the current prime minister of Finland, Antti Rinne, has been convicted twice in court for breaking the law related to strikes and his personal responsibility related to those, and in general is known to be not so very careful with his finances (having had to leave an earlier union post due to "confusion" in his expense accounts). Yet, even such blatant displays of dishonesty and disregard for law, much worse than expressing ones opinion, has not stopped him from becoming the prime minister of Finland -- and since Finland holds the presidency of the EU council right now, his position is pretty prominent. I've already pointed out other examples in the USA earlier in this thread, so this is just a practical example, and nothing specific to Finland; this happens everywhere.To me, this kind of applying behavioural rules and sanctions selectively, indicates that people are not rational, and are instead seeking for immediate emotional reaction/feedback/release. Regardless of their statements, their actions show that they do not care about the bigger picture, and are wholly interested in only their own emotional fulfillment. They only care about "evil" if it is something they can savagely burn at a stake, and chant; otherwise they ignore it.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 05:52:29 pm
content: Nominal, you will find that most people (and certainly parents) get pretty irrational when it comes to actions that affect children. I know I do when it comes to my own kids, and because of empathy, other people's kids. Of course just because I'm irrational doesn't mean I'm wrong. And when we move from action to mere talk, it still pushes our buttons, and not without reason. The "rational" defense of noting the age of consent in a particular country or state has no power against my emotional reaction. I have a daughter and honestly think that those low consent ages are more for the benefit of predatory adults than the children. This might have been necessary when we still lived in caves and humanity was hanging on by a thread, but these days the well-being of the child is more important.This is one reason why Stallman's statements got him in such hot water.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 06:52:28 pm
content: Well, it takes two to the tango. Correct me if I'm wrong, I believe Epstein didn't exactly lure random girls off the street with free candy.Age of consent basically means that he can be busted post factum, big deal. So he was. He offed himself. What a relief.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 07:21:03 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on September 27, 2019, 03:34:35 pmBecause you're probably stuck on a moral definition of intention. The basic definition of intention is the following: "a determination to act in a certain way".The moral definition is where it becomes almost, or completely, philosophical. You then have to define, or assume, many concepts, including consciousness, feeling, etc.Any machine that is autonomous enough to function according to a predefined goal, would have, by definition, intention. The key is not intelligence or consciousness IMO, it's just autonomy and goal.By that approach, a gun would not really qualify for that. It's not autonomous, and has no preset goal. It's just a tool able to shoot bullets.OTOH, a machine able to be instructed to identify and shoot a specific target without any further intervention, would, IMO, be considered has possessing intention. Obviously such machines exist.Of course now it's a matter of definition. If you think the basic one is not appropriate, do not hesitate to give a full, and clear, definition of intention, without resorting to a myriad of concepts that will in turn be pretty hard to define.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 07:34:22 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 27, 2019, 04:09:16 pmYup. That's why I tried to avoid the trap, and prefered the "well-meaning" idea. Of course this one can also be infinitely debated, but to avoid the trap of getting too deep, I would define this as the following.Well-meaning could be basically, and almost without notion of morals, defined as always acting while keeping the wellness and integrity of others as a necessary criterion. That doesn't mean necessarily *actively* maintaining those, but never do anything that could make them worse. Thus, always make things either neutral, or better, for others at any point. With that definition, it's obvious that machines can, by design, be, or not be well-meaning.And sure, integrity is not very hard to define. Wellness may already be a lot harder, but we can perfectly stick to the basic things that we already know either contribute to, or deteriorate, the wellness of human beings, and that would already give a decent ground.I guess that approach is much closer to ethics than morals.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 08:24:13 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on September 27, 2019, 05:52:29 pmIf you replace "irrational" with "protective", I'm with you.Quote from: fourfathom on September 27, 2019, 05:52:29 pmI disagree. If you are irrational, you are by default wrong, because you are reacting based on instincts or emotion instead of reasoning: you act based on the immediate situation, instead of looking at the whole. You can be right by accident, but that's it.Let me explain.What matters, is what kind of a society we create for the following generations: how free and safe they are, the number of options they have to choose from, and especially, how easy it is for one to build themselves a happy, productive life.Reacting purely emotionally, irrationally, to others opinions' does not help with that.Using incorrect terms to describe what happened makes things much worse, because it adds fuel to the flames: emotions flare, people react on instinct, but based on imaginary events, and not reality.In this particular case, RMS's opinion/suggestion, if followed, would have described what happened better, and lessened the emotional response. (That was his point: sexual assault makes blood boil; but whether a 70-year old man accepted the offer for "massage" (sex) a young girl over the age of consent, not so much. When you understand the situation -- and that it isn't even clear whether V.G. did have sex with M.M. or not --, there is much less fuel for emotive rage; and much more room to critically consider, how this situation could have been avoided, and who to punish here.) We have already established that there is no way Marvin Minsky sexually assaulted the victim here; if he did have sex, his offence was something different, something like not understanding that she, as a person above the age of consent, did not propose sex on her own volition, but by veiled coercion by a third party. Yes, she was definitely a victim, and it is important that we find justice for her -- not just for her, but so that we can catch such bastards early, instead of discussing about it a decade or two later --, but casting Marvin Minsky as a sexual assailant here is just smokescreen; possibly intended to flare up emotions enough to give a smokescreen to those who wish to avoid being punished for their actions, like Ghislaine Maxwell. Perhaps, because Maxwell is a female, people emotionally feel that she cannot be a sexual predator, and therefore latch on to the first male they can imagine being a perpetrator?To understand, consider this scenario:Let's say you have a son, 17, who has consensual sex with a girl his age. However, the girl has overbearing parents who claim that she cannot have agreed to the sex, and pressure her to file rape charges. Do you want people to react to the charges emotionally, or rationally? What if she was coerced to have sex with your son by her female friends; should your son be convicted of rape or sexual assault then? What if you are one of those overbearing parents; are you sure you'rerightand not just bullying your daughter?I say that emotive reactions are being exploited by various people, and that means a rational response is the only sane or correct one.Media is using emotional triggers for business, as a clickbait. Self-centered idiots are using second-hand offense to elevate themselves. Parents are using their children to spout their emotion-based drivel to further their own political or financial goals. Hell, some of the biggest "celebrities" are known only because they released a sex tape!Instinctual, emotive responses were useful when we lived in small communities. Now, with globe-spanning media, those instinctual responses are used to manipulate opinions, and even hide true perpetrators from justice. If you trust your emotions and instincts to guide you correctly in this tub of manipulation, you're going to be exploited. Rationality and critical thinking is the only way you can do your job as a parent well, in this fucked world of ours.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 09:12:38 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 27, 2019, 08:24:13 pmNo, because:Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 27, 2019, 08:24:13 pmWhich is what I meant. And you should probably admit that our emotions often have an entirely rational evolutionary basis. We often take the correct action based on emotion. It's when we don't that's the problem. You will *never* be able to reduce human interaction to pure logic.Give me a bit to digest the rest of your post, and then I may have some more pithy comments to add. At the moment I am doing chores to keep my wife happy, which is very rational of me.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2019, 10:41:19 pm
content: Nominal, I do generally agree with the points you are making. I was trying to point out *why* Stallman's comments got such a harsh reaction, and why MIT and FSF felt it in their best interest to fire him because of it.Early snow in Finland? We visit relatives there a few times a year, but usually when it's warm. I did spend a December in Helsinki once -- pretty dark and cold.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2019, 02:49:18 am
content: Quote from: fourfathom on September 27, 2019, 09:12:38 pmOh, I did; or at least tried to. They tend to work quite well in smaller communities, up to about 2000 people. (Above that, you can see statistically the increase of crime per capita, too.)Quote from: fourfathom on September 27, 2019, 09:12:38 pmNo, of course not. But online and written media, with just text and no nonverbal cues or body language to help, we must learn to rely on rationality more than emotion, because our instincts and emotions have not evolved to deal with this situation yet.That is partially why I dislike phone calls so much: you get enough nonverbal information to tell if someone is distracted, but not enough to tell why, so the cues I get get twisted. It is only easier when I know and trust the other person well enough to not need or care about that. Face-to-face is much easier for anything involving emotions; text IMHO is the domain of thought sequentialized (or quick one-liner notifications).Quote from: fourfathom on September 27, 2019, 10:41:19 pmYes; and in the same vein, I am trying to point out how bad that reaction is.I do have a personal connection to the matter at hand in that I fear my own expressions someday cause a similar backlash, and I do not know how to avoid that, other than censoring myself. To be ostracized, for just trying to help, but expressing "offensive" or non-PC opinions while doing so.Quote from: fourfathom on September 27, 2019, 09:12:38 pmNah, just first snow in Kilpisjärvi, which is about 1500 ft above sea level anyway, and well north of the Arctic Circle. I did grow up not too far from there, which probably explains a few of my personal quirks.Quote from: fourfathom on September 27, 2019, 09:12:38 pmMost definitely; my current city, too. Not only is it dark and cold then, but wet also; and with the salt mixed in with the slush, it eats your shoes as well. In many ways, winter is more difficult in the cities in southern Finland, than up north. Up north, you have snow and ice everywhere, which means that what little light you get, reflects off surfaces, so fewer things are black; but also there is less (time of) freezing wetness. Polarized sunglasses are a must in the fells in Feb-April!Anyway, I find it much easier to just pick proper clothes against cold, than to try and shield from freezing salty water-ice mush, with horizontal sleet, and horrible grimy gunk thrown all over by passing cars...

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2019, 05:46:45 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on September 28, 2019, 02:49:18 amBeautiful area! We spent one midsummer there, hiking the lakes and trails. Somewhere I've got a photo of myself taken at the top of Mt Saana, my watch showing midnight June 21 and the sun in the sky behind me.As for rationality in communications, I understand. I consider myself something of an irritating precisionist, and my attempts at accurate discussions do occasionally annoy normal people.