4 ms·

This isn't coming. A decade ago Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) ran a bill that outlawed general purpose computers and made it a federal crime to posses a compi

This isn't coming. A decade ago Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) ran a bill that outlawed general purpose computers and made it a federal crime to posses a compiler without a license. It's long since been here and will continue. Government officials desire the power to act with discretion to outlaw the computers they don't like and tolerate those they do. The especially want the power to decide after the fact and hold you retroactively responsible for anything they choose. The computer industry with its empowerment of the masses and startup culture is especially vulnerable to the usual bureaucratic power games so we will have to fight in order to lose our freedoms more slowly. The legislators and bureaucrats aren't stupid and they aren't ignorant of the principle of Turing Equivalence. They love the idea that every computer can be demonized and outlawed at once. They especially love the idea that every programmer must hope for the forbearance of his superior in the bureaucracy, forever focused on pleasing the big man in Washington on whose pleasure his freedom depends. It's like 1984 where Winston thinks that O'Brien will be his ally in reform because O'Brien understands the corruption, abuse, and evil of the system. Winston was wrong. The incumbents will not improve by being better informed. The horror totalitarian future you want to avoid is exactly the dream they cherish.

noblethrasher 15y ago
Given Hollings's legislative track record I'm inclined to believe you but do you have a source for that accusation?
- spacemanaki 15y ago
  I was curious and went hunting, and I think it might be this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_Television_Promotion_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_...
- tzs 15y ago
  It sounds like the proposed bill that Stallman complained about at the end of his right to read story. Here's that bill: http://w2.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/20020321_s2048_cbdtpa_bill.pdf http://w2.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/20020321_s2048_cbdtpa_bill... However, it doesn't really match the GPs description--I don't see anything about licensing compilers.
nerfhammer 15y ago
I see this viewpoint as containing the following characteristics. * the idea that society-wide events happen because they are planned by an entity that is fully conscious of what it is doing * the believe that entities actually exist that could actually reliably orchestrate society-scale things * the idea that society-scale things can be planned at all, which entails that society-scale things can be predicted reliably * the attribution of human characteristics to a vague group * the idea that vague groups can be understood as having a singular consciousness * the idea that vague groups can be understood as having a singular motivation exactly like that of a single human being, such as greed, avarice, lust, pride, jealousy This type of thinking has been attractive to humanity for the last hundred thousand years or so. It's like Hellenistic polytheism in which the natural world could be understood as being comprised of human-like entities each of which can be understood the way you would psychologize a single person. You can understand the natural world as you would understand the complex interplay of visceral motivations of different human-like minds. You might find it similar to the world The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones, any given soap opera, any Shakespeare play; the game of the viewer is you have to keep track of these different shifting alliances, relationships, and the visceral motives (lust, price, envy etc) of all these different characters plotting and scheming against each other; it's like porn for a certain part of the mind, it's just part of being a social ape. It's doubtless that it's a vital part of being a member of any small troop of chimpanzees, keeping track of complicated relationships, who owes who what, who's allied with who, who's sleeping with who, etc.
- dextorious 15y ago
  """* the idea that society-wide events happen because they are planned by an entity that is fully conscious of what it is doing""" "fully conscious" is a weasel-word to disqualify the fact the fact that A LOT of society-wide events DO happen because they are planned by an entity. Not only an aggregate entity, like a government, but even a single man sometimes. A dictator, for example, can (and historically has) pass a totally arbitrary law or course of action of his own choosing. (Napoleon: "we shall invade Russia"). """* the believe that entities actually exist that could actually reliably orchestrate society-scale things""" "Reliably" is another weasel-word here. Maybe a plan cannot ever go 100% as planned, but entities DO exist that can determine a course of action society-scale and make it happen. For example, NRA and it's lobbyists can pen, lobby and have the congress vote for a specific law. """* the idea that society-scale things can be planned at all, which entails that society-scale things can be predicted reliably""" See adobe. """* the attribution of human characteristics to a vague group""" Human characteristics (like "ambition", "ambivalence", "will", "shameless" etc) are totally applicable to groups, even vague groups. Actually, those characteristics as as easily applicable to single human s as to groups of humans -- there's nothing that makes them inherently applicable to single humans only. """* the idea that vague groups can be understood as having a singular consciousness""" Singular is another weasel-word here. They might not have a "singular consciousness", but they DO have an aggregate consciousness. I.e it's statistics, not an exact measurement. """* the idea that vague groups can be understood as having a singular motivation exactly like that of a single human being, such as greed, avarice, lust, pride, jealousy""" Same as above. In fact your arguments can even be applied to single human beings. Who said that the idea that a single human being "can be understood as having a singular motivation such as greed, avarice, lust, pride, jealousy" is not silly? We choose to generalize, we choose to make broad statements on data aggregates etc, both on terms of single human beings and groups because IT WORKS, and because it helps us understand and judge reality better. It's like when we study chemistry: yeah, underneath it it's all physics, but it's a nice level of abstraction to have and it helps us understand processes and act better for a lot of cases.
stcredzero 15y ago
A decade ago Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) ran a bill that outlawed general purpose computers and made it a federal crime to posses a compiler without a license. Citation needed. Not to be a pain in the 4ss, but because I want to read more about this idiocy!
- _exec 15y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_Television_Promotion_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_... Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inducing_Infringement_of_Copyrights_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inducing_Infringement_of_Copyri...
redthrowaway 15y ago
I'm sad to see a comment like this, claiming so much but providing evidence for so little, as the top-rated comment.
- ranit8 15y ago
  Reminds me of that recent thread by pg on a top-rated low-quality comment (it's the 2nd comment): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3103530 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3103530
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    It really doesn't say much for either of us that we both remember that 78 day-old comment, does it?

noblethrasher 15y ago

Given Hollings's legislative track record I'm inclined to believe you but do you have a source for that accusation?

spacemanaki 15y ago
I was curious and went hunting, and I think it might be this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_Television_Promotion_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_...
tzs 15y ago
It sounds like the proposed bill that Stallman complained about at the end of his right to read story. Here's that bill: http://w2.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/20020321_s2048_cbdtpa_bill.pdf http://w2.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/20020321_s2048_cbdtpa_bill... However, it doesn't really match the GPs description--I don't see anything about licensing compilers.

nerfhammer 15y ago

I see this viewpoint as containing the following characteristics. * the idea that society-wide events happen because they are planned by an entity that is fully conscious of what it is doing * the believe that entities actually exist that could actually reliably orchestrate society-scale things * the idea that society-scale things can be planned at all, which entails that society-scale things can be predicted reliably * the attribution of human characteristics to a vague group * the idea that vague groups can be understood as having a singular consciousness * the idea that vague groups can be understood as having a singular motivation exactly like that of a single human being, such as greed, avarice, lust, pride, jealousy This type of thinking has been attractive to humanity for the last hundred thousand years or so. It's like Hellenistic polytheism in which the natural world could be understood as being comprised of human-like entities each of which can be understood the way you would psychologize a single person. You can understand the natural world as you would understand the complex interplay of visceral motivations of different human-like minds. You might find it similar to the world The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones, any given soap opera, any Shakespeare play; the game of the viewer is you have to keep track of these different shifting alliances, relationships, and the visceral motives (lust, price, envy etc) of all these different characters plotting and scheming against each other; it's like porn for a certain part of the mind, it's just part of being a social ape. It's doubtless that it's a vital part of being a member of any small troop of chimpanzees, keeping track of complicated relationships, who owes who what, who's allied with who, who's sleeping with who, etc.

dextorious 15y ago
"""* the idea that society-wide events happen because they are planned by an entity that is fully conscious of what it is doing""" "fully conscious" is a weasel-word to disqualify the fact the fact that A LOT of society-wide events DO happen because they are planned by an entity. Not only an aggregate entity, like a government, but even a single man sometimes. A dictator, for example, can (and historically has) pass a totally arbitrary law or course of action of his own choosing. (Napoleon: "we shall invade Russia"). """* the believe that entities actually exist that could actually reliably orchestrate society-scale things""" "Reliably" is another weasel-word here. Maybe a plan cannot ever go 100% as planned, but entities DO exist that can determine a course of action society-scale and make it happen. For example, NRA and it's lobbyists can pen, lobby and have the congress vote for a specific law. """* the idea that society-scale things can be planned at all, which entails that society-scale things can be predicted reliably""" See adobe. """* the attribution of human characteristics to a vague group""" Human characteristics (like "ambition", "ambivalence", "will", "shameless" etc) are totally applicable to groups, even vague groups. Actually, those characteristics as as easily applicable to single human s as to groups of humans -- there's nothing that makes them inherently applicable to single humans only. """* the idea that vague groups can be understood as having a singular consciousness""" Singular is another weasel-word here. They might not have a "singular consciousness", but they DO have an aggregate consciousness. I.e it's statistics, not an exact measurement. """* the idea that vague groups can be understood as having a singular motivation exactly like that of a single human being, such as greed, avarice, lust, pride, jealousy""" Same as above. In fact your arguments can even be applied to single human beings. Who said that the idea that a single human being "can be understood as having a singular motivation such as greed, avarice, lust, pride, jealousy" is not silly? We choose to generalize, we choose to make broad statements on data aggregates etc, both on terms of single human beings and groups because IT WORKS, and because it helps us understand and judge reality better. It's like when we study chemistry: yeah, underneath it it's all physics, but it's a nice level of abstraction to have and it helps us understand processes and act better for a lot of cases.

stcredzero 15y ago

A decade ago Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) ran a bill that outlawed general purpose computers and made it a federal crime to posses a compiler without a license. Citation needed. Not to be a pain in the 4ss, but because I want to read more about this idiocy!

_exec 15y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_Television_Promotion_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_... Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inducing_Infringement_of_Copyrights_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inducing_Infringement_of_Copyri...

redthrowaway 15y ago

I'm sad to see a comment like this, claiming so much but providing evidence for so little, as the top-rated comment.

ranit8 15y ago
Reminds me of that recent thread by pg on a top-rated low-quality comment (it's the 2nd comment): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3103530 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3103530
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  It really doesn't say much for either of us that we both remember that 78 day-old comment, does it?