Comment by dogma1138 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dogma1138 | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if this guy also does not have bank accounts, credit cards, phones (land or cell) to their name, and all live in a cabin in the woods without paying taxes.

It's also a bit odd that for a guy who intentionally buys a 10+ year old or so hardware to run free/libreboot on it (at least partially to trust the boot layers), didn't mind buying a Chinese laptop which was not only made in China, but also designed from parts natively developed in China including the CPU by a government institute.

His browsing habits are also a bit well laughable tbh, both because at the end even if he hogs the free WiFI at Starbucks he is traceable, and delivering internet pages of email ins't intrinsically more secure or surveillance resilient than browsing them directly.

This guy always interested me in some ways, it's quite amazing how one can be so talented and so coo coo for cocoa puffs at the same time, and in contrast to the usual extreme left social anarchists or marxists also very accomplished.

Could you try to refrain from insults like "coo coo for cocoa puffs"?

Stallman is trying his best to live up to his ethical principles. What is the point of your uncharitable criticism?

Sorry i don't see this exactly as an insult, yes there is quite a bit of abnormality in there probably with a slight touch of insanity, if you fail to see that well that's your problem, not every thing is criticism, some are just observations.

"Criticism" might be too lofty a word for your accusations of "abnormality" and "insanity" in this level-headed personal page. Please reconsider the value of sharing your subjective and uncharitable "observations."

"Teaching children to use Windows is like teaching them to smoke tobacco..."

You should read some of his essays :)

Here's a more complete quote, for anyone interested:

"Teaching children to use Windows is like teaching them to smoke tobacco—in a world where only one company sells tobacco. Like any addictive drug, it inculcates a harmful dependency. (Bill Gates made this comparison in a 1998 issue of Fortune Magazine.) No wonder Microsoft offers the first dose to children at a low price. Microsoft aims to teach poor children this dependency so they can smoke Windows for their whole lives. I don’t think governments or schools should support that aim."

http://new.bostonreview.net/BR33.6/stallman.php

With a small issue that Bill Gates have never said it, the entire quote is by RMS. Bill Gates made a comparison on the fight against big tobacco and the anti-trust campaign against MSFT in the mid to late 90's in that issue, but this isn't even quote mining, it's a complete distortion of the facts.

Bill Gates said in an interview together with Warren Buffett that people in China who were using pirate copies of Windows would get "sort of addicted" and that Microsoft would "somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." That's what RMS is referring to; it's not a fabrication.

RMS characterization of it is a fabrication. Gates did not make the comparison that RMS says he did.

RMS could have accurately described the characterization Gates made, and then launched into how that related to the criticism RMS would like to have made, but choose instead to be dishonest to get a little more rhetorical impact with audiences unfamiliar with the truth (or already committed blindly to the cause) at the expense of his credibility with others.

I disagree with your charge of dishonesty. Gates said that cheap copies of Windows would ensure that many people in China get "sort of addicted" to Microsoft technology. Stallman's "characterization" of the comparison says that Gates likened Windows to an addictive drug. That is not incorrect. Your claim that he is fabricating is itself a rhetorical point intended to discredit Stallman as a liar.

Yeah he also supports other very questionable things:

https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html

"05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party) Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization.

I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."

Expressing scepticism of a clam of harm is not the same thing as supporting those who perform the alleged harmful activity.

That's not the problem. The problem is how he expresses it - especially the phrasing "voluntary pedophilia". It's very similar to the hullabaloo about Todd Akin's statements where he spoke about "legitimate rape victims".

So, you're saying that there is a problem with saying: "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children."?

If so, what is the problem and why is it a problem? If not, then what are you saying?

The problem is exactly what I said. The use of the phrase voluntary pedophilia. It is a problem because it implies that such a thing actually exists.

History is littered with accounts of people consummating marriages at ages far below 16. In many jurisdictions, this would be considered pedophilia.

Keeping in mind that -other than overall improvements in health- a man from Ancient Greece is physiologically no different from a man from Today's Greece, Is it your position that the husband or wife in these socially acceptable ancient marriages was a pedophile?

Either a "yes" or a "no" is a totally acceptable answer here. I'm interested in an earnest discussion; I'm not trying to lead you down a garden path or anything.

By definition in the law children are not in the position to make such a decision, therefore the world voluntarily does not have any meaning in this context. Pedophilia is always classified as rape regardless if you think it is ok because the victim said so.

I am just pointing out the status quo by the law that is supposed to be the written, clear representation of the moral behind it.

If you want to challenge that, first you have to recognize children in the law as individuals who can make decisions including about their sex life. This is not going to fly. Without this the entire argument is invalid and making such statements like RMS about this topic is just stupid.

You seem to be saying "[T]he law that is supposed to be the written, clear representation of the moral behind it. If you want to challenge [a given law], first you have to [change that law to recognize as valid the point that you wish to talk about].". Am I wrong?

Then, your statement can be better phrased as "Illegal things are always illegal for a good and proper reason. It's improper and non-productive to discuss whether or not the things that they make illegal should be illegal.".

This is an indefensible statement.

Here are a few relatively harmless, or -in some cases- everyday things that are or were illegal in parts or all of the US:

* Oral and anal sex between unmarried persons (known in the state as "Deviate sexual intercourse") is currently (at the time of this writing) illegal in the State of Alabama. [0] What is "Deviate sexual intercourse"? "Any act of sexual gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another." [1]

* Polygamy and polygyny are illegal in the US. [2]

* Until recently, gay marriage was illegal across the entire US. Now, it's just illegal in significant parts of it. [3]

* Less than a hundred years ago, it was illegal for women to vote in the US. [4]

* Marijuana consumption and production is still very illegal in much of the US, and is considered by the Federal government to be just as bad as heroin, crack, and cocaine consumption and production.

Bad law gets made all the time. What's more, the values of a population tend to change more rapidly than the laws that govern their behavior. Bad, or no-longer-useful laws continue to be enforced for ages before they get struck down (if they ever get struck down).

One critical part of the process that prunes useless law is earnest public discussion of the applicability of the law. Silencing earnest honest discussion of the form "If this illegal behavior actually causes no harm, should it be illegal?" is troubling and harmful, as this sort of discussion is a huge part of how improper laws are removed.

[0] http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/codeofalabama...

[1] http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/codeofalabama...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#North_...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni...

in contrast to the usual extreme left social anarchists or marxists also very accomplished

I can't find any evidence for him being either of these things. He has described himself as a Liberal [1], and praised Dennis Kucinich, whose political positions are quite progressive, but hardly "extreme left anarchist/Marxist" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, these kinds of views are pretty mainstream in Western Europe and other places.

[1] https://stallman.org/archives/2009-sep-dec.html#10%20Decembe...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dennis_...

I always took him for a liberal (in the American meaning) libertarian. I don't think he's an anarchist or a Marxist at all, though I expect some of his opinions on private property (especially intellectual property) might be somewhat agreeable to a Marxist.

I suggest your read his essays, I've never said he's a Marxist, but his creed to stick to his principles is very similar to some extreme left organizations. And no sorry, but his views are not mainstream in Western Europe, I live in London, I've lived in Frankfurt and in Amsterdam, and I spend most of my summers in Iceland per the orders from my "female unit", while some of his views might be shared with more or less with main stream views in modern democracies including the US btw, the reasoning behind his views, and the vigilance and the veracity in which he practices them even if it hurts certain organizations (take a look at his protests against OLPC when they decided to look into Windows which actually resulted in them losing some funding), heck he and his marry band went to Peru to protest OLPC's being delivered with Windows in hoping to build up enough counter pressure to actually revert that decision.

Now being a vanguard for free software is one thing, but using your reputation to go and protest children in developing nations getting PC's because they've switched from GNU to Windows? That's some hard core vegan shit there like dying because you refuse to eat a burger.. So yep I do hold his views and actions as extremes, not all of them ofc, some i might even agree on in practice if not in justification.

you've made an analogy saying a protest for your beliefs is like dying for your beliefs?

and you are calling somebody an extremist?

talk about hyperbole.

The guy protests charity's that get money from Bill Gates, he actively attempted to prevent children from getting computers under the OLPC's program because they could run Windows with a 7$ extension card.

When Steve Jobs died he made this post on his site:

Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.

As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." Nobody deserves to have to die - not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing.

Sorry but i don't need a hyperbole to relate my position that this guy has quite a few extreme views, and takes quite a few extreme actions.

P.S. Wanting to cancel a program that was aimed at bringing computing to children in underdeveloped nations is actually worse than dying out of stubbornness for your beliefs, it's actively denying people who have very little just because you think that running Windows is a Sin, this is the equivalent of Christians evangelists holding out donations to African countries that do not institute anti-gay and anti-sodomy laws.

i think you've levelled some very hyperbolic accusations re his OLPC protests.

can you provide me with the source materials for these protests? i'm not really accepting them at face value, due to your previous hyperbole.

in many cases you can protest against behaviour whilst allowing that behaviour to continue. peaceful protest versus using violence for example.

thanks for the apology re the previous hyperbole.

here's links to the steve jobs statements that you find so extreme, in case anyone is particularly interested in them(rather than reading the shortened version you have presented)

https://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul-oct.html#06_October_2...

https://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul-oct.html#27_October_2...

i'm sure most people have said similar about those who have passed who do not have their enduring admiration.

> his creed to stick to his principles is very similar to some extreme left organizations

ayy lmao

Reply on news.ycombinator.com