Richard Stallman Says He Has Cancer (itsfoss.com) 143
slack_justyb writes: Richard Stallman revealed his diagnosis of lymphoma at the GNU Hacker's meeting in Biel, Switzerland yesterday. He did not share much about his health condition but did indicate that it is "manageable" and that he expects to be around for many more years ahead.
Just to add (Score:5, Insightful)
I know folks have "opinions" about RMS. But cancer sucks, I hope for a speedy recovery for the guy.
Re: Just to add (Score:3, Insightful)
I hold some of those opinions. I also hold favorable opinions of his work. But we're all people and I pray God granted him the mental strength to go through a very unpleasant physical process.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If God wanted to grant RMS the mental strength, then He would do so whether you prayed for it or not, right?
If God did not want to grant RMS the mental strength, then He will refuse to do so, whether you pray for it or not, right?
Since God is all-knowing, He already knows what the needs are and hence does not need us to pray to him about them. Further, God already has a plan, so our requests are at best asking Him to do what he already planned to do anyway, or asking Him to change his plan to better suit o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
God listens to prayer because God was imagined to cater to man's narcissism. If there was an all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe there would be no need for prayer.
Re: Just to add (Score:2)
It's instructive for the mind to occasionally ask oneself if there's anything you do that could be flippantly described as "whispering magic words to the universe with the expectation your wish will be granted."
Speaking of medical instances of this phenomenon, the wife related to me an anecdote of a patient of hers she came across who was diagnosed with pretty bad cancer and was in a state of disbelief on the grounds that this person ate organic foods and seemed to sincerely believe that those were the magi
Re: (Score:3)
Up here in Liberal Massachusetts you won't get many open bible thumpers, but you do get that kind of secular magical thinking too.
There isn't "religious magical thinking" and "secular magical thinking". It's all just delusion, sometimes shared as a group and sometimes private. Trying to separate one form from the rest imparts tiers of acceptance, when delusion of all forms should be stamped out by rational, thinking people.
Re: Just to add (Score:2)
One of those delusions is that magical thinking requires an Abrhamic religion to be it's conduit. A corollary delusion is that if you stamp out the latter from the bounds of acceptable civil discourse, you will stamp out the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally people don't end up deluded. However, I mentioned exercise cultists in another post. That would be those people who think that they should be invulnerable to any and all health problems because they exercise like maniacs. The thing about that is that, while the idea of invulnerability is an illusion, they are, on the average healthier than most people because of the exercise. It doesn't make them invulnerable, but it does actually improve their general health. So, if they need a delusion to actually
Re: Just to add (Score:2)
It's common to hear from those people that, without religion, people would just be murdering and raping and stealing all day long. This attitude leaves secular humanists scratching their heads.
As often happens, the quick shortcuts afforded by binary thinking are our enemy here.
People obviously won't be going all lord of the flies at the drop of a hat, but it's at the margins where belief in a supreme moral order to the universe will start to make a difference. You can see this in history and in fictional depictions of history and scifi depictions of alien worlds based on our own history: do we afford the accused a fair trial or do we treat accusation as evidence of guilt? Are those convicted of c
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really sure I follow your reasoning here. Religion isn't really the way we came up with our "right answers". The bible is pretty clear about, for example, children and human rights in the sense that it doesn't think they have any for the most part. Selling your children into slavery, straight up murdering them if they're the slightest bit disobedient or violating their bodily autonomy in pretty much any way is all just fine according to the bible. Ditto for forms of "justice" that are considered abh
Re: Just to add (Score:2)
I would posit that having a common definition of "right" in "do the *right* thing" is a prerequisite to having people buy into any system.
Whether you call that "right" thing a Right Thing or ascribe it to the result of a mathematical calculation from first principles (to take two extreme ends of the philosophical spectrum) I would say doesn't matter since it is functionally identical.
I guess that's a long winded way of saying that atheism can be indistinguishable from religion from a certain point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with a common definition is that it's more like a Venn diagram where everyone has their own definition and where those circles intersect there's common ground. Different cultures and religions will have "right" things that don't fit into the definitions of other cultures and traditions. For a relatively extreme example, not killing people fits most people's definition of the "right" thing. However, for many people there are certain conditions where killing people is considered the "right" thing
Re: Just to add (Score:2)
To even get to the idea that doing the most good or doing the least to cause suffering, you need some reason to believe that human suffering is universally bad. You've got an instinct for that with respect to your kin, and perhaps your clan, but what makes me believe some upright ape thousands of miles away who might be speaking gibberish to my ears is even sentient? I think you need another axiom to believe that. And my personal opinion is that whatever axiom or chain of reasoning it ends up being is going
Re: (Score:2)
To even get to the idea that doing the most good or doing the least to cause suffering, you need some reason to believe that human suffering is universally bad.
That would be one of those axioms I was talking about. It's also one of those Venn diagram things where, for most people, reducing suffering falls in the common center. Under moral rules imposed by religion though, it's quite common for suffering, even eternal suffering, both in the afterlife and in life, is considered a good thing. This is one of the problems with letting morality be externally defined by religion.
You've got an instinct for that with respect to your kin, and perhaps your clan, but what makes me believe some upright ape thousands of miles away who might be speaking gibberish to my ears is even sentient?
That comes off as really racist.
I think you need another axiom to believe that. And my personal opinion is that whatever axiom or chain of reasoning it ends up being is going to be functionally equivalent to some kind of divinity.
That can be your opinion, of course, but I think that's unfou
Re: Just to add (Score:2)
You've got an instinct for that with respect to your kin, and perhaps your clan, but what makes me believe some upright ape thousands of miles away who might be speaking gibberish to my ears is even sentient?
That comes off as really racist.
No shit. Probably explains a good chunk of racism throughout human history, too.
And again, my point is that that kind if thinking is as much a product of natural selection as anything else is, and if you want to talk about the moral worth of someone who's not of your blood, you need to invoke some kind of higher authority to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
No shit. Probably explains a good chunk of racism throughout human history, too.
Well, as long as you are upfront that you're a racist. I mean, it doesn't make it better, but at least you don't seem to be denying it. Whether it's for utility or just basic decency, racism is counterproductive to a healthy society. You can make some ridiculous argument that people of different races should just be segregated, but, from a pragmatic standpoint, that's a completely impractical position.
And again, my point is that that kind if thinking is as much a product of natural selection as anything else is, and if you want to talk about the moral worth of someone who's not of your blood, you need to invoke some kind of higher authority to do so.
You don't need to invoke some kind of higher authority, you just need to not be an idiot and to not be a te
Re: Just to add (Score:2)
I think you're impeded by your inability or unwillingness to understand that there have been and *are* a lot of people in the world who lapse into that sort of thinking, and those people aren't that different from you.
My point is that if racism and tribalism were obvioisly detrimental in the Darwinian sense, they would be as common as they are now. And if you're on the opposite side of the gulf from where you are, where it isn't blazingly obvious that we're all people even if we don't sound alike or look al
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're impeded by your inability or unwillingness to understand that there have been and *are* a lot of people in the world who lapse into that sort of thinking, and those people aren't that different from you.
No. I was quite explicit that I recognize that there is some subset of people who seem to need an externally imposed set of moral rules laid out for them and presented as being from a divine entity. I consider it problematic, but I recognize that some people have that difficulty.
My point is that if racism and tribalism were obvioisly detrimental in the Darwinian sense, they would be as common as they are now. And if you're on the opposite side of the gulf from where you are, where it isn't blazingly obvious that we're all people even if we don't sound alike or look alike, it can be, and has historically been, a tenable position.
It's historically been a disastrous position. The time period you're thinking of is pre-history. The characteristics of the period defined as "history" as opposed to "prehistory" make those kinds of extreme partisan urges counterpro
Re: (Score:2)
Up here in Liberal Massachusetts you won't get many open bible thumpers, but you do get that kind of secular magical thinking too.
In my experience it doesn't matter if someone is from a liberal background or a bible thumping one, if they think that they are exercising enough and eating some sort of good diet, they are positively shocked by the concept that they too may be vulnerable to disease. It seems to be especially true of certain kinds of people who I can only describe as exercise cultists. They buy into a philosophy about health that certainly has some truth to it. Regular exercise will make you more healthy and reduce rates of
Re: Just to add (Score:2)
I think that people who pray genuinely are digging deep and recognizing their sins, hypocracies, and shortcomings. They are atoning. God likes that because corruption isnâ(TM)t just in the sin, but in the lack of recognition of the sin, the lack of being sorry, of humbly understanding oneself and the nature of the world and existence. God likes atonement. He doesnâ(TM)t answer prayers as payback, he answers prayers because atonement makes the world a better place. âoeAnsweringâ prayers
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have to recognize that there are different types of prayers. The person praying for forgiveness for bad things they have done may be seeking atonement and that self-reflection on personal shortcomings can be healthy. However, there's also the type who seeks atonement for their sins because they believe that their religion is just a machine for absolution. Say 12 hail Mary's and your sins are wiped clean so you can sin again, etc. The problem with the idea that all your wrongs can be forgiven if
Re: Just to add (Score:2)
I am an atheist I do have some good understanding of the concepts having been a minister in the past and having traveled through a lot of different religions before and after coming to my current viewpoint.
The Jewish and Old World Christianity viewpoint is that you should not ask G-d for anything, prayer is an acknowledgment of your lack of knowledge and power and you pray to basically acknowledge you have a problem, offer thanks etc and then G-d will do whatever he wants. It is more of what a modern psycho
Re: Just to add (Score:2)
God is a father. Fathers change plans all the time on their children's inputs - they like pleasing their kids. So if his earthly knockoffs are like this, why would a heavenly God be a pompous tyrant that pays no attention to prayer?
Re: Just to add (Score:2)
RMS, is that you? lol
Exactly the time! (Score:3)
shut the fuck up this not the time or place.
Now is exactly the time. To let it slide is acceptance. And many of us do not accept woo or think it's a healthy way to deal with actual reality.
This is not quite as galling as "thoughts and prayers" as an afterthought to gun crimes, but it's close.
Re: Exactly the time! (Score:2)
You're entitled to your theological opinions and I'm entitled to mine. I'm almost certain that some of what you hold near and dear could be called superstitious woo by someone else who thinks he's got it all figured out by the awesome power dwelling only between his ears and no one else's. How do I know this? You're human. That's how.
Re: (Score:2)
Given what we know of Stallman's own views, I actually think he might appreciate the discussion. To add my two cents, while the argument against prayer as necessary for the favor of omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent beings checks out pretty well. Think of it like a parent. If they hear their child cry out for help, they will come to help. What if they did not need the child's cries to know that the child was in trouble and needed help though. Would a decent parent just stand back and refuse to help unl
Re: (Score:2)
i was being sarcastic, of course i know why people hate atheists so much.
Re: Just to add (Score:2)
Because they can not murder or rape people without being told not to by a book written to excuse genocide?
Re: Just to add (Score:4, Funny)
> I pray God granted him the mental strength
I opened emacs, supposedly the direct link to St Ignucius, and sent a patch reverting the introduction of the cancer feature.
Currently waiting for ACK/NACK.
Now I'm stuck in emacs, as I only know how to exit vi...
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm stuck in emacs, as I only know how to exit vi...
You are in luck, here is a recent 11 minutes video [youtube.com] about just that.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm stuck in emacs, as I only know how to exit vi...
You are in luck, here is a recent 11 minutes video [youtube.com] about just that.
3,692 views as of Sep 26, 2023. You and the slashdots are amazing.
Re: Just to add (Score:2)
Why would you ever need to exit?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he wanted to open a text editor. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, just launch it with screen and switch back and forth to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on our track record, you shouldn't put your faith in mankind. If there is any one redeeming quality we can observe in the faithful, it is a healthy skepticism of humanity and the zeitgeist of the age.
Re: Just to add (Score:2)
Peas be upon you!
most worthy Genius Grant awardee ever (Score:1)
He got his genius grant in 1990 when the GNU project basically consisted of emacs, gcc, glibc, binutils, bison and maybe a few other compiler tools. Today software written under his license runs the world.
I'm not trying to date the guy I could care less about his personality quirks.
Re: most worthy Genius Grant awardee ever (Score:2)
I do agree with the genius of the license, however the majority of developers went with Linux over GNU Hurd because of the other very misplaced technical ideals (microkernel). You can see the same misplaced idealism in emacs as vi is obviously superior
Re: (Score:3)
But how much of it would exist and be released to the world for Free if he had not started the free software meme ?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
How much of it would be relevant had AT&T not sued BSD? Without a doubt, Linux would not exist as we know it without that lawsuit and GNU itself has never mattered. Odds are, FSF is only relevant because of events outside RMS's control.
Re: most worthy Genius Grant awardee ever (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Around that time, the first thing to do on a new Unix box, of whatever flavour, was to install the GNU tool chain, bash and utils because they were a) better and b) the only way to get consistency across various more or less proprietary variants.
Also c) not just Free but free. Usually you had to pay for a compiler for Unix systems BITD. Xenix, Unix, SunOS 4 and 5, AIX, HPUX, Digital UNIX, literally none of these systems came with the compiler and only a few of them even came with the linker (mostly so that you could rebuild libc and maybe also the kernel without unused modules... or with the ones you needed which weren't included — e.g. for example in SunOS 4.1.1 you had to relink libc to get DNS. Not sure if they started including it in 4.1.
Re: most worthy Genius Grant awardee ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing to do with is false.
If it succeeds in part because it uses the GPL then he was involved, if only peripherally. Pun intended.
For example, major contributors to Linux have stated outright that they chose to contribute to Linux over a BSD because of the license. You can thank Linus for choosing it, but you can also thank RMS.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. In that statement they object to him, but never express what they have a problem with. I mean, I think I know, but it's honestly gotten a bit vague. He had trouble accepting that a personal friend did something bad. I think that's basically it, right? I was just seeing in the news that Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis wrote letters in support of their friend who committed multiple violent drugged rapes. While I think that was questionable judgement, I can also understand how difficult it must be on a pers
Re: (Score:2)
This is from the first paragraph, you don't think this covers why?
"We at EFF are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019."
No, I don't think that covers why, because it lacks any specifics. "accusations of misconduct" is not specific.
"The real heroes, I'm beginning to understand, are all the MIT women alumni from the 80's and 90's, especially in Computer Science, that had to put up with this."
Because Stallman may have acted inappropriately but not criminally, that's some how justification to stop him from leading the FSF? At least if he had been convicted of something, he could have done his time but instead the EFF is participating in a witch hunt that has no statute of limitation.
That's basically what I was saying. The EFF does not seem to have a concrete complaint.
Fuck cancer (Score:1)
That is all.
Steve Jobs (Score:4, Funny)
I'm just remembering a comment he made about Steve Jobs, after Steve died of cancer....
Re: (Score:3)
The one that Jobs should have not kicked doctors for mumba-jumba-mambo voodoo hoola-hops chamans?
Re: (Score:2)
No, the other one
Re:Steve Jobs (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
"Unfortunately, that influence continues despite his absence. We can only hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective."
Ref: https://www.zdnet.com/article/... [zdnet.com]
Stallman seemingly revels in being the stereotypical asshole sysadmin with zero social skills.
Re:Steve Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
On this, i agree with RMS at 100%. Even with the wording.
Re: (Score:2)
Even your username can't get me to disagree.
Re:Steve Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
People sometimes throw around words like "arrogant" or "asshole" when they know the person they detest was absolutely right.
You wrote nothing to convince me the RMS did nothing more than reality check the obituaries written by members of Jobs' cult of personality.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... but what RMS is doing here is not " the stereotypical asshole sysadmin with zero social skills", it's a FACT checker...
I mean, because you die people can't no longer point your crimes?
I mean, you can suck all you want Gandhi... but do not forget he considered black people NOT EVEN human and he slept SIDE OF her niece to "resist the temptation"...
Or you can love as much as you want Mother Theresa of Calcuta... but do not forget she systematically expressly forbid the use of pain killers in her buildin
Re: (Score:2)
In most human social circles, you avoid criticism of the dead during an observance of their passing. The term "too soon" exists for a reason.
Stallman was not putting on a master class in diplomacy.
Re: Steve Jobs (Score:4, Informative)
This one is not even harsh by slashdot standards; you can easily find worse here.
A much funnier episode is when he went off on an emacs volunteer for taking paternal leave because 1. the world already has enough children, 2. having children is not difficult enough to be worth doing merit recognition since even plants can do it, and 3. continuing to code emacs would probably do more good for the world than his child ever would.
fucking classic.
https://tess.oconnor.cx/2005/0... [oconnor.cx]
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even true. Plants are absolute sluts, they indiscriminately mate with every other plant they can. There is no barrier to reproduction in the plant world.
It's much, much harder to convince another human to make a baby with you. In fact most mammals are at least somewhat selective. Clearly a more challenging achievement.
He either didn't think it through or he's resentful, either way no excusing it.
Re: Steve Jobs (Score:2)
well he is himself a proud phytosexual (https://stallman.org/articles/texas.html), so my guess is that it was a result of his misanthropy and autism, possibly involuntary celibacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Stallman seemingly revels in being the stereotypical asshole sysadmin with zero social skills.
It's not like he was actually wrong. Jobs was terrible for computing and the opposite of a decent human being. We are talking about someone who denied the paternity of his child for years and years, despite being very wealthy and the paternity being absolutely proven. Then, later, his behavior towards his daughter was pretty terrible. He enjoyed parking in handicapped spaces apparently to make some kind of point. Who used his wealth to obtain a transplant organ that was extremely unlikely to actually extend
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
"Unfortunately, that influence continues despite his absence. We can only hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective."
Ref: https://www.zdnet.com/article/... [zdnet.com]
Stallman seemingly revels in being the stereotypical asshole sysadmin with zero social skills.
There's a non-asshole version of RMS.
I doubt he went on a lifelong crusade rewriting proprietary software and starting a foundation dedicated to free software with almost religious fervour.
Generally assholes are a bad thing, but they can get results, RMS is one of the instances where the results were worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet not repeating it here. Wonder why?
Re: (Score:2)
It might be this one: "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." [zdnet.com]
Stallman is a top-tier jerk in a number of ways, but I still don't wish cancer on him or anyone else. There are a number of promising treatments in the works ranging from mRNA to targeting cancer cell-specific proteins. If conventional treatments don't address it, I hope one of the new ones will. Hope for Stallman surviving cancer means hope for a lot of others.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear mods, I'd didn't intend my comment to be modded Funny.
Also to franzrogar, my wife took a similar route to Steve, against my wishes, and is in the same situation. A few months left to live now.
Re: (Score:2)
Hello, are you my internal monolog? No, you aren't. I actually posted my "internal scruitinty" myself you twit.
Re: Steve Jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
Steve Jobs is one of the few I think is safe for criticizing what happened to him, making him a legitimate exception. The guy was an overall dick sure, but his own hubris is what ultimately lead to his own death. He had a very slow growing and easily treatable form of cancer that he literally chose to do nothing about because of his new age belief system. The same belief system that lead him to yell at a waiter for the crime of...giving him butter.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And then he stole an organ from another needy recipient in a desparate attempt to save his life from his own stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon, it's not like there has been any shortage of people in the past 3 years who were in a predicament because of their own stupidity and tied down valuable emergency resources that could have been used to save other people's lives if they hadn't been bullshitted by snakeoil peddlers.
Singling out Jobs for wanting to save his sorry hide from his own stupidity worked a couple years ago, it's been the new normal for the past 3 years now.
Re: (Score:2)
At least these people can get help with some psychotherapy.
How do you treat terminally stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
You could throw this criticism at every alcoholic/drug abuser who has needed a new liver.
Well, not really. Those people are basically last in line for organs, meaning they do not normally get one and just get to die since there aren't enough transplant organs. If one of them was rich and used their money and influence to get an organ when they really should not have, then you would have a point about them. The medical triage that is done normally prevents that from happening though. It's the gaming of the system that was the moral failing for Jobs, not the fact that he got sick.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, I agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid people do stupid things out of ignorance, very intelligent people can do stupid things because they are smart enough to find a way to rationalize anything. One thing very smart people have trouble with frequently is dealing with the times they are wrong and being unable to see their egos (those dirty emotions) are driving them at that point and not their wits. It stops them from admitting they were wrong.
Re: Steve Jobs (Score:2)
Yes, he does. That said, why don't you research what his children think of him? And do report back here what you find.
I've also heard it said that Steve Jobs wouldn't have survived #metoo if he was alive during that, and I think it's an accurate statement.
My main cancer, I call it Rupert (Score:3)
A Parting Shot from Dennis Potter [youtube.com]
"One of the favorite fantasy plots of a writer is, a character is told you've got three months to live which is what I was told, who would you kill? I call my cancer, the main one, the pancreas one, I call it Rupert, so I can get close to it. Because that man Murdoch is the one who, if I had time, in fact I've got too much writing to do and I haven't got the energy, but I would shoot the bugger if I could."
For a dramatic and endearing eulog
Wishing Richard good health moving forward (Score:2)
Wishing Richard health and strength through his difficult time. And as many GNU/Linux based systems involved with his recovery as possible!
Fuck cancer and good luck to him (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever opinion you may have of Stallman, NO ONE deserves cancer. Most of us have had to deal with losing someone to this damn disease.
I wish him good luck and minimal pain in his treatment and hope it provides him remission for many years to come.
Re: (Score:2)
And Covid tried so hard, but you just can't beat the Big Two.
Re: (Score:2)
This is gonna be very rough on him (Score:2)
Ever look at the equipment in a hospital room? A lot of it runs Windows...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some, but I wouldn't say a lot. Most is running...something else.
Being hooked up to a machine running Windows, and probably a very outdated version, would not make for a well-rested me.
Re: (Score:2)
But never mind me. To be a fly on the wall while he shares his opinions with the technicians...
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing as exhilarating as seeing a BSOD on your respirator!
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to point out how this is relevant. If only so we can ridicule you and make fun of you.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not the only one [newsweek.com] to ridicule and make fun of, especially when you're so thin-skinned that you have someone pointing out your lie removed [forbes.com] so no one else can see you were called out for said lie.
Re: (Score:3)
I bet the people who treat his cancer don't take his claim to be allergic to water seriously nor do they tolerate his unwillingness to bathe.
Re: (Score:2)
So now anti-vax nutters are claiming that the COVID-19 vaccines cause lymphoma. That's a new claim apparently pulled out of thin air.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh oh. Does he have turbo cancer? All the YouTube videos say the shots give you turbo cancer!
Wait, what is turbo cancer?
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to mention why I should care.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with intelligent people discussing topics especially with academic contexts or backgrounds is that the internet can share them with the masses... who are not intelligent or able to think clearly on difficult subjects. In modern times where righteous simpletons have even managed infect academia and their subtle terrorism pushes the risk-adverse to bend to the stupidity.
Stallman never did anything really wrong... other than assuming he wouldn't be significantly impacted by stupid people; which wa
Re: Just a reminder of what he said. (Score:2)
Why do you only pickthis quote of him?
If you were really honest, you would also retranscribe his later quotes on the subject. Like the one where he said that after talking about it with experts, he realized he was wrong.
But you didn't, because contrary to RMS who was intellectually honest enough to change his views when presented with evidence and not try to scrub his wrongdoing from the internet (both of those quotes are on his personal website), you are not honest.
Re:He Already Won... (Score:4)
So he is still alive, is that what you're trying to tell us?
Re:In the words of RMS... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the horror of being allowed to edit and audit your own software, how will we ever survive this blight?
They're quoting RMS (Score:2)
It's what RMS said after Jobs died, with the names swapped.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that for Jobs it was a very fitting obituary.
Re:In the words of RMS... (Score:4, Funny)
But we all deserve the end of Stallmanâ(TM)s malign influence on peopleâ(TM)s computing.
Hey Billy G is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
But we all deserve the end of Stallman’s malign influence on people’s computing.
At the risk of responding to a troll... by malign influence, do you mean copyleft licenses? If so, would your preference be more permissive licenses like BSD or full blown public domain or something else?
Re: (Score:2)
Steve? That you?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously.
My wife works in a lymphoma ward at a hospital, and they have nearly as many patients now as there were during peak covid, and nobody wants to talk about it.
Now that you're feeling all smug, I want to point out that I'm just kidding, and they have the same fucking number of patients as the always did.
Re: (Score:2)
for age group 25-34 the annual death toll between 2018 - 2022 is 129->163, up 26%
for 35-44 the death toll 2018 - 2022 is up 31%
The covid is over. Welcome to the new "normal"