4 ms·

"The Coming War on General Computation", Cory Doctorow (2011). Speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

by bo1024 1y ago

"The Coming War on General Computation", Cory Doctorow (2011). Speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg Transcript: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Computation https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Com... (Of course, Stallman warned of this type of thing much earlier as well.)

chipsrafferty 1y ago
[flagged]
- ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
  He didn't assault anyone. He said a bunch of things. They've all been collected here: https://stallman-report.org/ https://stallman-report.org/ What I love about that report is that the author created it with the intention of making Stallman look bad. And if you look at the author's summaries, he looks bad. However, the author also made us the favour of collecting all the statements in one single place. And if you look at the things that Stallman actually said (as opposed to the author's summaries) he doesn't look bad, he looks strictly correct.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    And there's a reply to that: https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman/ https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stal... via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113414 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113414
    - ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
      Yeah yeah but the reason why I link to that, is that if someone is interested they can with minimal effort find by themselves all the information to understand it was just a smear job. Like, someone says "C assaulted B". And Stallman says "If A forces B to offer herself to C, C didn't assault B". Which is obivously correct. It could only be incorrect if you were redefining words to serve your purposes.
      - fsflover 1y ago
        I got what you're trying to say, and I agree. I just added my link for completeness.
      - dminik 1y ago
        Ok, I'm confused here. I had a look at what Stallman said and what Minsky allegedly did. Apparently, Minsky had sex with one of Epstein's girls, who later said she was forced into it. Now, his wife denies the allegation, as she was apparently with him at all times on Epstein's island. Now, I can believe that he went once, and maybe had sex with someone he didn't know was not doing so willingly. But, what about his wife? Was he cheating on her? Was she a part of it? And why did he return a second time? And after Epstein's conviction in 2011??? And here comes Stallman, and he's not even denying that he's slept with someone, potentially cheating on his wife? His issue is with the wording? Nobody in this situation looks good.
        ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
        His issue is that saying "assault" to mean "sex with someone" is dishonest, even if that person is 17. Which is obviously is. Any sane person hears "assault" and thinks that means "assault" instead it means something else. What is happening is that the meaning of words are being changed for the purpose of using pre-existing laws. Example, you think that Bla is very bad and isn't punished enough by the law. There's law that severaly punishes Fleem. So, whenever you see Bla you call it Fleem and argue that the anti-Fleem law applies. That way you can effectively re-purpose a law. Specific example: "catcalling" is now "sexual assault" in the UK. It's easier to do it this way, than to argue that people should be punished for catcalling.
        dminik 1y ago
        Ok, but surely there are more important thing going on there than the wording. It feels like Stallman wants to defend his friend, but doesn't really have any way to do that. So, instead, he pivots to pedantry. Like ok, assuming that Marvin really did not know, it's wrong to label him as a sexual assaulter(?). Though legally a sexual assault still occured. But, it still doesn't explain, justify or deny that he allegedly slept with someone , possibly behind his wife's back. And it also doesn't explain that they went *BACK* to Epstein's island after knowing he was a sex trafficker. And that presumably the girl he slept with might have also been trafficked.
ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
Stallman is always right eventually. It's actually quite incredible.

by bo1024 1y ago

chipsrafferty 1y ago

[flagged]

ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
He didn't assault anyone. He said a bunch of things. They've all been collected here: https://stallman-report.org/ https://stallman-report.org/ What I love about that report is that the author created it with the intention of making Stallman look bad. And if you look at the author's summaries, he looks bad. However, the author also made us the favour of collecting all the statements in one single place. And if you look at the things that Stallman actually said (as opposed to the author's summaries) he doesn't look bad, he looks strictly correct.
- fsflover 1y ago
  And there's a reply to that: https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman/ https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stal... via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113414 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113414
  - ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
    Yeah yeah but the reason why I link to that, is that if someone is interested they can with minimal effort find by themselves all the information to understand it was just a smear job. Like, someone says "C assaulted B". And Stallman says "If A forces B to offer herself to C, C didn't assault B". Which is obivously correct. It could only be incorrect if you were redefining words to serve your purposes.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      I got what you're trying to say, and I agree. I just added my link for completeness.
    - dminik 1y ago
      Ok, I'm confused here. I had a look at what Stallman said and what Minsky allegedly did. Apparently, Minsky had sex with one of Epstein's girls, who later said she was forced into it. Now, his wife denies the allegation, as she was apparently with him at all times on Epstein's island. Now, I can believe that he went once, and maybe had sex with someone he didn't know was not doing so willingly. But, what about his wife? Was he cheating on her? Was she a part of it? And why did he return a second time? And after Epstein's conviction in 2011??? And here comes Stallman, and he's not even denying that he's slept with someone, potentially cheating on his wife? His issue is with the wording? Nobody in this situation looks good.
      - ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
        His issue is that saying "assault" to mean "sex with someone" is dishonest, even if that person is 17. Which is obviously is. Any sane person hears "assault" and thinks that means "assault" instead it means something else. What is happening is that the meaning of words are being changed for the purpose of using pre-existing laws. Example, you think that Bla is very bad and isn't punished enough by the law. There's law that severaly punishes Fleem. So, whenever you see Bla you call it Fleem and argue that the anti-Fleem law applies. That way you can effectively re-purpose a law. Specific example: "catcalling" is now "sexual assault" in the UK. It's easier to do it this way, than to argue that people should be punished for catcalling.
        dminik 1y ago
        Ok, but surely there are more important thing going on there than the wording. It feels like Stallman wants to defend his friend, but doesn't really have any way to do that. So, instead, he pivots to pedantry. Like ok, assuming that Marvin really did not know, it's wrong to label him as a sexual assaulter(?). Though legally a sexual assault still occured. But, it still doesn't explain, justify or deny that he allegedly slept with someone , possibly behind his wife's back. And it also doesn't explain that they went *BACK* to Epstein's island after knowing he was a sex trafficker. And that presumably the girl he slept with might have also been trafficked.

ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago

Stallman is always right eventually. It's actually quite incredible.