Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Former Linux Developer Hans Reiser To Remain Locked Up

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post

    My fathers told me when I was a kid..
    "Tell me with who you usually agree with... and I will tell you, who you are.."

    My old parents at the time,
    Gave me "that tool"..

    Today( with all the experience acquired during my life.. ), I realize that "that tool"( that my fathers gave me in childhood ),
    Was probably the most powerful tool they ever gave me..

    I don't know about you,
    But I know about me, and I don't want a single line of code of that guy polluting my computer..
    You are seriously mixing up the concept there - maybe you are holding "that tool" backwards.

    If you are about to drown, and someone you can't stand is about to save you, then your use of "that tool" would force you to say no and drown because you can't stand being saved by someone you don't like.

    The source code does not represent political, ethical, ... views. So the use of the ReiserFS really has nothing to do with what you feel about the person. It would have been a difference if every partition formatted with RFS had required you to pay money to Hans Reiser. Then you could argue that you don't want to support him by giving him royalties.

    In the end, it isn't a question of "polluting" any computer. It's a question of who you want to support. So seeing him as a dirt bag, it would be logical that you don't want him to get out and earn money for continuing to maintain the file system. But that's a completely different question from having ethical issues about using the already existing file system. Code isn't dirty, but paying for getting (potentially new/updated) code can be dirty.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by Moscato View Post
      The abortion question has already been decided in roe vs wade.

      A woman has no legal requirement to continue to support a fetus inside of them.

      The fetus can be removed, without killing it immediately. It will of course, have no chance of survival on its own, but making sure another person survives is not your legal responsibility. Even with life support from a medical facility, it will eventually end.

      Perhaps you could step up and be a donor to make sure the fetus survives by transplanting it, but nobody should be required to grow another creature inside of them. It's a form of slavery.
      This is a settled legal issue. Just get over it.

      It's not a legal issue, it's an ethical issue, and a crappy US legal decision doesn't apply. And just by the way, I'm not american nor living in the US, but even then that wouldn't count.

      There are higher things than even the constitution of any country.

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post

        My fathers told me when I was a kid..
        "Tell me with who you usually agree with... and I will tell you, who you are.."

        My old parents at the time,
        Gave me "that tool"..

        Today( with all the experience acquired during my life.. ), I realize that "that tool"( that my fathers gave me in childhood ),
        Was probably the most powerful tool they ever gave me..

        I don't know about you,
        But I know about me, and I don't want a single line of code of that guy polluting my computer..
        Yeah, not really sure what you're getting at, since you speak in innuendo. The thing is, you can't tell that the software you're running is probably, in part, written by child molesters.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by Moscato View Post
          The abortion question has already been decided in roe vs wade.

          A woman has no legal requirement to continue to support a fetus inside of them.

          The fetus can be removed, without killing it immediately. It will of course, have no chance of survival on its own, but making sure another person survives is not your legal responsibility. Even with life support from a medical facility, it will eventually end.

          Perhaps you could step up and be a donor to make sure the fetus survives by transplanting it, but nobody should be required to grow another creature inside of them. It's a form of slavery.
          This is a settled legal issue. Just get over it.
          Specifically regarding that legal decision, and taking no position on the ethical matters tied up in it, it's likely that that decision will be rightfully overturned. The way it was decided has been a stain on the Supreme Court, and almost everyone involved (including Roe herself, who rescinded her accounts) is embarrassed to some extent about it.

          If you want to affirm the largely unlimited right of a woman to have a professional kill a fetus, or a ready prenatal infant, in her womb despite the law; you will probably need to call a constitutional convention. I personally think this issue will fall again to the states, once the decision is reviewed.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by microcode View Post

            Yeah, not really sure what you're getting at, since you speak in innuendo. The thing is, you can't tell that the software you're running is probably, in part, written by child molesters.
            I really hope not,
            But yeah, I admit that maybe we could have code from Unwanted people..

            But not knowing about it, is one thing, knowing and continue using their code is another..

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post
              I really hope not,
              But yeah, I admit that maybe we could have code from Unwanted people..

              But not knowing about it, is one thing, knowing and continue using their code is another..
              What substantial harm is there in exploiting the labour of people with unrelated unforgivable flaws?

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by microcode View Post
                What substantial harm is there in exploiting the labour of people with unrelated unforgivable flaws?
                "tell me with the people you usually agreed with, and I will tell you who you are.."
                In first place exploitation, is not a good term for the case, because that term makes you been even worst than the correspondent Criminal..

                "unrelated unforgivable flaws" ??
                They are not unrelated flaws... there are severe crimes, horrendous ones..

                The answer to what I think is your question, ... i believe you are able to get it yourself..

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post

                  "tell me with the people you usually agreed with, and I will tell you who you are.."
                  In first place exploitation, is not a good term for the case, because that term makes you been even worst than the correspondent Criminal..

                  "unrelated unforgivable flaws" ??
                  They are not unrelated flaws... there are severe crimes, horrendous ones..

                  The answer to what I think is your question, ... i believe you are able to get it yourself..
                  Huh? If English is your second language I get not understanding "exploit", though this is all gobbledygook. You seem to be saying that you just sorta believe whatever feels comfortable and expedient. What is wrong with benefitting from unrelated actions of somebody who also happened to, completely separately, do something heinous which was unforeseen and is no longer a danger? It's not like using ReiserFS causes murder or something.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X