Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the legislation-tends-toward-gibberish dept.

Politics 807

jrepin sends this excerpt from an opinion piece at OSNews: "Late last year, president Obama signed a law that makes it possible to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects without any form of trial or due process. Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities. Initiatives like SOPA promote diligent monitoring of communication channels. Thirty years ago, when Richard Stallman launched the GNU project, and during the three decades that followed, his sometimes extreme views and peculiar antics were ridiculed and disregarded as paranoia — but here we are, 2012, and his once paranoid what-ifs have become reality."

cancel ×

807 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Free software wouldn't have helped (0, Flamebait)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567000)

The whole article is a complete non sequitar. Free software wouldn't prevent Obama from signing an indefinite detention bill, nor it would it stop government intrusion on ISPs. There's no relationship between government overstepping the mark and buying a proprietary product from a company you respect because you want to use the product and are willing to sacrifice unrestricted access to its innards.

Richard Stallman also thinks necrophilia [stallman.org] and "voluntary pedophilia" [stallman.org] should be legal, including possession of child pornography. He doesn't visit web sites [lwn.net] --instead, he sends email to a daemon that wgets the page and emails it back to him. Perhaps most infamously, he eats toe jam in public [youtube.com] .

Perhaps not the best spokesperson to get behind.

A broken clock can be right some of the time. Claiming Stallman was right all along is like claiming the paranoid street preacher predicting natural disasters as God's judgement was right all along after a hurricane hits. He may have predicted something that ended up occurring, but that doesn't mean his approach to solving the issue nor his philosophy are in the same bucket.

The author of this piece, Thom Holwerda at OSNews, is becoming known over there as a pandering, flamebait author in the vein of Dvorak. His essays come off as if they're specifically designed to get posted on Slashdot. Because of that, I suspect there will be more submissions from him in the future, unfortunately.

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (5, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567028)

Perhaps not the best spokesperson to get behind.

It is funny that you complain the article is logically flawed when you make an argument from authority and complain about the messenger instead of the message.

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567122)

Failed to see argument from authority. Please quote it for me: I'm a dumbass.

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (5, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567260)

It's his claim that we shouldn't listen to Stallman because Stallman is a nut-job. It's a sort of reverse argument from authority, where he claims that the other side is so insane, you should listen to him (he's comparatively authoritative). Stallman's general utter lunacy isn't a legitimate test of the validity of any specific argument he makes.

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (2)

BKX (5066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567328)

I believe that's argument from incredulity. It's usual form is something like, "This guy's ideas are wrong because he can't properly format a hyperlink and is therefore retarded and because of his idiocy his ideas are also wrong." While it's true the GGP can't properly format hyperlinks, that doesn't make his conclusions wrong; it just makes him either stupid, ignorant or lazy.

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567370)

While it's true the GGP can't properly format hyperlinks, that doesn't make his conclusions wrong; it just makes him either stupid, ignorant or lazy.

You left out an option. Perhaps he thought he had it right, checked over it twice to be sure, but simply made a mistake anyhow. Happens all the time. This is why two personnel are required to double check tasks in some environments.

Multiple Account Apple Troll bonch (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567152)

http://slashdot.org/~bonch [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/~SharkLaser [slashdot.org]

Plus multiple other shill accounts.

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (5, Informative)

john82 (68332) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567288)

How about this: The messenger in this case [RMS] has nothing to do with the current state of affairs. There is no correlation. No prognostication.

Is that a satisfactory summary?

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (4, Informative)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567412)

Really, you shouldn't make comments about logical fallacies if you don't know what they actually are. There is no argument from authority. He points out the fact that nothing Stallman has said or done would have any effect on the legislation nor on what is being said about the Occupy protesters. He also points out Stallman's obviously poor thinking in numerous things.

At best he engages in some ad hominem.

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567040)

GPL3 licensed code in the Linux kernel would have made a huge difference to people building their own versions of android to install on phones. But Linus didn't want to go there.

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (4, Insightful)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567158)

GPL3 licensed code in the Linux kernel would have made a huge difference to people building their own versions of android to install on phones.

While I wish we had that - a GPL3 licensed Linux kernel would not have been used in android. It probably would have been a BSD derivative.

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567070)

Here let me quote RMS on voluntary pedophilia:

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.

He's sceptical of the argument against it but he didn't say it should be legal. My understanding is his judgement is reserved and he wants clarification of why it should be illegal.

It's almost as if you are spreading misinformation about him.

Wrong (5, Informative)

XanC (644172) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567128)

Stallman said:

prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced.

Re:Wrong (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567162)

Citation (that goes for GP as well)?

Re:Wrong (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567190)

It's from the "necrophelia" link of the OP.

Re:Wrong (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567334)

Oh thanks. I didn't even think to look there.

Re:Wrong (5, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567220)

I'm not getting into this argument myself, but here's your cite [stallman.org] ... Stallman wrote it on 28 June 2003 (and the poster's paraphrase seems valid, though I doubt the statement represents the full breadth of Stallman's views).

Re:Wrong (1)

awrowe (1110817) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567184)

Whole quote please, including the words disappeared by that ellipsis and the preceding paragraph for context.

Re:Wrong (5, Informative)

XanC (644172) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567204)

Okay. I think you'll find I was perfectly true to the meaning:

The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

Re:Wrong (4, Insightful)

awrowe (1110817) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567378)

Yeees, to a point - although the following couple of paragraphs give some seemingly light hearted and off the cuff justification of incest and necrophilia - he fails to address the pedophilia mentioned by the person he originally quoted.

Come on, he is the archetypal anti-social computer nerd. His humour is ponderous, tasteless and generally not funny. Easily twisted though.

Re:Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567332)

This quote must be from some other time because RMS certainly did not say that in bonch's link for the same subject. That is the only one that I read from beginning to end.

Re:Wrong (5, Insightful)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567386)

He's right. But, it showed poor judgement to say as much. The beer swilling, football watching masses don't get nuance. That "as long as" qualifies as nuance for that crowd. Now he's tarred as a pedophile sympathizer for life, at least on the idiot side of the house.

Discretion is the better part of valor.

I want to love RMS but he makes it really hard to do so.

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567210)

Free software wouldn't prevent Obama from signing an indefinite detention bill, nor it would it stop government intrusion on ISPs.

Unless that software is running a free government. [metagovernment.org]

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567282)

Can't we just let Diebold program our government?

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567212)

There's no relationship between government overstepping the mark and buying a proprietary product from a company you respect because you want to use the product and are willing to sacrifice unrestricted access to its innards.

Yes there is. The relationship is risk.

HTH.

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (2)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567232)

Agreed. Not only would free software not protect you but it's the wrong approach.

Open source software doesn't stop the government from infringing your constitutional rights. What you need to do is protect those above all else. And that requires *ACTION* on the part of the people. There wasn't enough outcry to stop it. If there was it wouldn't have happened.

Furthermore the obsession with open source software as a catch-all ignores the fact that it's unlikely that my 3D modeling application is going to infringe my constitutional rights somehow just as my closed source washing machine probably has minimal impact of my privacy.

Lastly you can install Linux all you want, but that won't protect you from the government installing a rootkit, unless you magically re-compile your kernel every morning and even then it's possible to sneak in a back-door. The simple truth is that if someone wants to spy on you... they will. What's important isn't whether they spy on you but that you protect your rights in a court of law so that none of that is admissible.

And even then the entire chain has to be secure... which is impossible. So if you ever attach your computer to a network you are probably using a closed insecure network. Everything is becoming a computer. To say that computers is the future is of course accurate, and Stallman I suppose is accurate in that regard... but just because my refrigerator is networked and a computer doesn't mean I need to be able to see the source code for the temperature control.

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567264)

Richard Stallman also thinks necrophilia [stallman.org] and "voluntary pedophilia" [stallman.org] should be legal, including possession of child pornography.

While I definitely disagree with him about child porn, I may be in the minority if I say I don't have anything against necrophilia. No, I have no interest in corpses myself, I'm disgusted by them, but that shouldn't be the only basis for denying other people that. A corpse is a corpse, simple as that, and a corpse doesn't care anymore what happens to it. Just have it illegal to rob graves or such, but leave the actual act of necrophilia legal for those who have obtain their corpses legally, ie. by e.g. people who like the idea that someone will hump their dead corpse after their gone themselves. People are so strange that there is bound to be people like that, too.

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567416)

A corpse is a corpse

Of course, of course. But no one can talk to a corpse, of course.

(posted A.C. because I've already moderated)

RMS = modern Thomas Paine (1)

Alan R Light (1277886) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567278)

I guess you're saying that Richard Stallman is the modern day Thomas Paine? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567350)

nor it would it stop government intrusion on ISPs

...because it already did. Just imagine that the network stack was proprietary [wikipedia.org] and the producing company forced/bribed [osnews.com] into providing a backdoor...

Andrew Grove famous quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567380)

I'll make it short by quoting Andrew Grove - " Only Paranoids Survive "

Capitalism naturally... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567030)

... leads to the concentration of wealth and power which naturally leads to dictatorship.

Re:Capitalism naturally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567318)

Actually it doesn't until it starts messing with the politics of it's host nation in order to maintain/increase market-share, and or restrict/prohibit the development of competitive products. Then it becomes fascism...which by it's nature does lead to total market confinement and dictatorship. Free-market capitalism does not have these issues because when a product and or service becomes obsolete due to the introduction of superior products (which true capitalism naturally encourages) their host companies have but two choices, adapt and survive, or go the way of the dodo!

What we have in the US is not free market capitalism, but because we are a capitalist country, everyone assumes that the virtual monopolies that contaminate our economy are a natural out-growth of capitalism...The truth is we havn't seen true free-market capitalism for over a century!

-Oz

Re:Capitalism naturally... (5, Insightful)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567434)

You can't have free-market capitalism though - because capitalism concentrates wealth and power, monopoly, aka fascism/dictatorship, is always inevitable. The free market is a mythical land where companies compete on the merits of their product, rather than the size of the budget they have available for marketing, lobbying, and mercenary private security forces.

The best you can do with capitalism is try to keep it in check. The worst... well, it's beginning to look like the worst is coming.

Re:Capitalism naturally... (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567398)

And that's what this is really about: Trying to tie the fight against loss of control of our computing devices with a need for communism.

Re:Capitalism naturally... (1)

PenguinJeff (1248208) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567414)

It is starting to feel that way luckily there are term limits. Maybe we can get a 3rd party candidate in this time to help straighten our system out again.

Gasp! Obama... Wr... Wrong?? (-1, Flamebait)

sanman2 (928866) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567034)

Gasp! You mean the Obama-messiah is less than divinely perfect? Whoa... gonna have to sit down... re-evaluate my religious beliefs...

Re:Gasp! Obama... Wr... Wrong?? (4, Funny)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567206)

Its amusing that the only time I hear this is from someone on the other side

Yea sure, red candidates can forget one of their three major campaign points, and that is ok, they are just human ... Obama on the other hand misses a button on his coat and its the fucking focus of his incompetency on Fox New Radio for a week

Re:Gasp! Obama... Wr... Wrong?? (3, Funny)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567292)

Gasp! You mean the Obama-messiah is less than divinely perfect? Whoa... gonna have to sit down... re-evaluate my religious beliefs...

Never fear, there's still the Paul-messiah to believe in! I'm convinced he would never let messy political realities factor into his political decisions...

Re:Gasp! Obama... Wr... Wrong?? (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567422)

Obama's doing exactly what we liberals expected him to.

You don't elect the politician you WISH you have, you elect the politicians you are given to choose from.

It's far better to put in a conservative Democrat in the White House than any right-wing lunatic Republican nut job. Those were the two choices we were given. And he's doing a great job at stamping out the Republican party. Just look at the disarray the Republicans are in right now. The far-right won't exist after this 2012 election, and we can finally get rid of libertarianism and religion from America, while imposing a large, socialist government against the will of the right-wing members of our society.

Meanwhile, why are YOU so surprised?

Lucky for him... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567036)

They still haven't outlawed eating toe cheese [youtube.com] . :)

Occupy != Terrorists (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567046)

I have yet to see a nation or government take the official stance that Occupy are terrorists. Squatters, freedom-of-speech-abusers, illegal encampments, yes, but not terrorists.

Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities

While I decry the NDAA and SOPA as much as anyone, I'll not buy into the Occupy claims of victimization and persecution when they squatted for TWO MONTHS before the police were sent in to clear them out. You have a right to protest, to share your ideas, and to educate the public. You do NOT have the right to squat in public spaces until the world does things your way, or we'd still have grey-haired hippies camped out all across the nation demanding that you "free the weed."

I certainly won't buy any paranoid claims that they're going to be locked up as terrorists.

Re:Occupy != Terrorists (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567084)

And now that I've finished reading the article, I realize it says NOTHING about Stallman's software ideals. It's a misleading title for a rant piece that has nothing to do with software freedom.

It also conveniently neglects the fact that most of the internet infrastructure affected by SOPA is run on open source implementations, so the freedom of the software has done NOTHING to prevent governments from trying to abuse it.

How they make a connection from Stallman to the NDAA is completely beyond me. They certainly don't explain why they're related in the article.

Re:Occupy != Terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567420)

Since a couple of years now I'm skipping everything that has the line 'Thom Holwerda' as sender or poster information because it's usually absolutely not worth reading it. Not even as a flame bait or rant. It's just drivel.

Re:Occupy != Terrorists (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567090)

I have yet to see a nation or government take the official stance that Occupy are terrorists.

  Business Insider: British Police Label Occupy London Terrorists [businessinsider.com]

Re:Occupy != Terrorists (4, Insightful)

JazzHarper (745403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567366)

Which is a completely false headline, if you actually read the police newsletter that it references. Even if it *were* true that the London police had classified them as terrorists (which, I repeat, they did not), that's still a far cry from the hysterical "Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities" claim in the summary of *this* article. Geez, people, take a breath between your rants.

Re:Occupy != Terrorists (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567216)

You need to read more of the news of the world. They are not yet locked up as terrorists here and may never get that ridiculous classification, in the more 'civilized' nations we use word games to avoid such stark galvanizing actions. If things end up repeating the actions taken 100 years ago some officials will likely make such claims or at least in the rhetoric the terrorist label will be used. (Its been just shy of that already.)

Free Speech does not include limitations, we have allowed "reasonable" violation of that right which is continually abused to try to undermine it further with time so that now we accept free speech zones; so you have free speech online and in a public cage; then its ok... At EQUAL FOOTING in the constitution is the right to free assembly and petition etc. however that one has been undermined generations ago and people already accept far less of that right. The right to assembly does NOT have a time limit and none of the occupy things have prevented movement over the public spaces (or contractually defined public spaces.)

Free press does not include requirements for embedded sheltered and managed media. Definition of press however is left open ended so legitimate draconian measures can be created; however, we don't need those because we gave up the rights of the press long ago; starting with taxation of the press (oddly we don't tax religions...and that is more legit.)

Re:Occupy != Terrorists (5, Insightful)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567262)

You have a right to protest, to share your ideas, and to educate the public. You do NOT have the right to squat in public spaces until the world does things your way,

Where in the First Amendment does it say you can only protest for two months, or any other limited amount of time?

Re:Occupy != Terrorists (4, Informative)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567310)

Yes because we all know no one ever got shot in the head @ occupy.

Iraq veteran seriously injured by police projectile is lucid and responding but brain swelling still a risk, say doctors

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/27/occupy-oakland-scott-olsen-surgery [guardian.co.uk]

To be fair to Obama... (3, Informative)

cmv1087 (2426970) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567060)

The detention legislation was attached to the military spending bill for the next year and he did release a signing statement [thinkprogress.org] specifically stating that he didn't like it.

Re:To be fair to Obama... (5, Insightful)

klingens (147173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567106)

He doesn't (didn't?) like Guantanamo either, it's still there. He didn't like retroactive immunity for the telcos for snooping either, it's still law.
You need to look at his actions, not his well spoken words.
If the law is bad in his opinion, it's his duty to veto it. If he signs it he agrees. No ifs, no buts no maybes.

"If he signs it he agrees." (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567178)

It's a little more complicated than that. If he signs it it means he thinks
signing the legislation is a better option than not signing the legislation --
not that it's a good law. Sometimes tradeoffs are made, especially
in the f**ked up federal legislature that runs (poorly) the US right now.

Funny, the captcha was "corrupt".

Re:"If he signs it he agrees." (5, Insightful)

unrtst (777550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567396)

It's very very very little more complicated. He issued a statement specifically stating that he didn't like it, but then signed it in anyway. If no one stands up to "the f**ked up federal legislature", then it'll just continue to get worse.

I mean, yay, he says stuff I agree with (for the most part), but if he's not going to act on that, then it doesn't mean shit. I'm not sure if it's better or worse that he's not even trying to hide the fact that he's not doing what he says. He might as well be fully supporting it because that's the end result - he'll be out of there in 1-5 years, and the decisions he's making will stick around long after that.

Re:To be fair to Obama... (5, Insightful)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567252)

You need to look at his actions, not his well spoken words.

I agree, but let's keep in mind that legislation is written by Congress, not the President. It seems to me that Congress needs to be held responsible for writing and passing the objectionable parts of the NDAA at least as much as the President is responsible for signing it.

If the law is bad in his opinion, it's his duty to veto it.

Agreed again, but note that the bill passed the Senate 86-13 and it passed the House 283-136, both of which are over the 2/3rds threshold for overriding a Presidential veto. Therefore a veto would not have been likely to prevent the bill from becoming law; it would simply have given Republicans a fresh club to beat the President with ("vetoed critical funding for Our Troops", "soft on terrorism", yada yada). Given that, I think Obama decided to cut his losses.

Hardly a profile in courage, I agree, but then again there is a point at which taking a principled stand starts to look an awful lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Re:To be fair to Obama... (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567274)

He doesn't (didn't?) like Guantanamo either, it's still there. He didn't like retroactive immunity for the telcos for snooping either, it's still law.

This shocks a lot of Obama critics, but in spite of the fox news propaganda, Obama isn't in fact a dictator and has extremely limited capabilities to affect policy without the support of congressional support.

In fact such signing statements where a president objects to such individual elements is used against both Bush and Obama as example of the executive branch overstepping its authority to simply either sign or veto legislation.

The only way Obama's wishes could be imposed would be if he stopped all action in government by vetoing everything he didn't like. In which case he would be accused of being a tyrant. So he's a tyrant if he signs it, He's a tyrant if he signs it but says he won't spend any energy enforcing it and he's a tyrant if he vetoes it.

Re:To be fair to Obama... (2)

ichthus (72442) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567116)

Oh, well then ok. No worries.

I wonder what his feelings are on the TSA gropings.

Re:To be fair to Obama... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567132)

Yeah, because releasing a signing statement is the same as not signing it at all.

Re:To be fair to Obama... (2)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567174)

he did release a signing statement [thinkprogress.org] specifically stating that he didn't like it.

Then why did he sign it?

Re:To be fair to Obama... (4, Insightful)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567240)

Because it's a defense spending bill and there are massive political downsides to not signing a defense spending bill.

And besides, it was passed by a veto-proof majority so it wouldn't have made any difference if he didn't sign it, it would have been put into effect anyway after an override.

Re:To be fair to Obama... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567306)

it would have been put into effect anyway after an override

So instead of standing on principle, just sign it and provide full legitimacy to the bill? Without a presidential signature, at least congress has to go on the record as putting the law in place against the President's veto. It might be the same outcome, but the President now shares in the stench instead of separating himself from it.

Re:To be fair to Obama... (5, Insightful)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567344)

Well if it didn't matter then why didn't he take a stand and stick by his guns? I mean if the outcome is the same either way...

Re:To be fair to Obama... (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567294)

Because republicans would have hammered him with it for all the other parts that he was rejecting because of this one bad bit.
A depressingly no-win situation because of the generally poor reasoning level of the public.

Re:To be fair to Obama... (1)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567284)

"I realize that I am signing a law that directly contradicts the contradiction, therefore I don't like it. But I'm doing it anyways. But its ok, cause I don't like it and I'm crossing my fingers as I sign it. Please vote for me again. I said I didn't like it, isn't that good enough?"

NDAA does not have that provision (4, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567076)

According to TFA's TFA
"The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents"

I haven't checked the text of the legislation, but this seems to indicate that it's still only foreigners Bush IV can lock up forever.

Re:NDAA does not have that provision (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567104)

Who was Bush III?

Re:NDAA does not have that provision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567316)

George W.

Re:NDAA does not have that provision (2)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567144)

did you know gullible isn't in the dictionary?

Re:NDAA does not have that provision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567246)

lock up forever? or assassinate?

Re:NDAA does not have that provision (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567394)

You're right about one thing: you haven't checked the legislation. The only part that may not apply to US citizens is the requirement that they be remanded to military custody. It's still an option if the President (on his own authority) deems it necessary.

Re:NDAA does not have that provision (1, Informative)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567408)

As I explained, [slashdot.org] and as people immediately showed that I was correct in assessing that MSM confused the public on this issue, [slashdot.org] I bring [slashdot.org] towards you this information [youtube.com] , no matter how confusing it all seems.

Yes, it is true, Obama specifically fought to make sure that the US citizens are in fact included into the bill and are now just as much of a target for the US administration as any funny looking foreigners.

For the record (5, Informative)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567080)

they used the Patriot Act against the Occupy Wall Street protestors :). This folks, is why I'm a left wing socialist. And for those of you keeping score Obama centrist leaning to the right (or a liberal without the stomach for a good fight, but same thing really).

Re:For the record (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567156)

Whuuaa? You're a left wing socialist because you DON'T like big, intrusive government?

Re:For the record (2)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567196)

Heh. I really shouldn't jump into a political discussion like this but...
Socialists believe in government by the people. The form of government they push IS intrusive, I agree, but it is supposed to be completely by the people, so its not big. At least as far as I understand it (and if I'm wrong feel free to correct me). Civil rights violations like GP mentions are not supposed to happen in that kind of society.

Re:For the record (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567226)

Yep. Watch the lessons of history, not Faux News, and this makes perfect sense. Talk is cheap; actions matter. Case in point: no matter how much the teabaggers bleat about small government they're still out to establish police of vice and virtue. This is what you get for voting for conservatives like Obama.

Re:For the record (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567374)

socialism = big government is the morondom of a travesty that has been produced in america. no such equation exists in other parts of the world in political literature. socialism basically means ownership of means of production by the people equally. it does not matter how you run those tools of production. you can federalize and localize to hell, or you can collect it all at the hands of one big central government.

Re:For the record (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567302)

Wait, you're for gigantic overreaching government which controls people's lives, but you're against this.

I think you're a tad confused.

I know if you go off the extreme ends of the political radar you end up in the same place, but you're probably looking for libertarian.

Re:For the record (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567392)

The moment you can label yourself like that, you are a blithering, fuckheaded ideologue just as bad as anyone you hate.

Cuisine (1)

TheSeeker11 (1061698) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567082)

So it *is* ok to eat your toenails in public?

Re:Cuisine (0)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567308)

Yep, you can eat dead animals in public too. Disgusting but true.

Slashdot has been part of the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567088)

If he was right, and nobody payed attention, it's his own fault for his failed messaging strategy.

In this, Slashdot's tilting at windmills war against Microsoft was a big part of why FOSS has never been taken seriously. Companies choose Windows for good reasons. As Munich proves, it's impossible for large networks to replace Windows with Linux... and they were throwing tons of money and manpower at trying to get that dog to hunt.

Not funny when it happens to you, is it? (3, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567142)

Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities.

Meanwhile, Tea Party groups have been labeled with every epithet the left and mainstream media could throw at them and are actually more peaceful and law-abiding than the average Occupy *** protest. Welcome to the club. You're not special.

Re:Not funny when it happens to you, is it? (2)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567208)

Didn't the Tea Party bring guns to some place or other? I remember hearing about that somewhere on here. Or was that a ./ myth?

Re:Not funny when it happens to you, is it? (4, Informative)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567384)

Didn't the Tea Party bring guns to some place or other? I remember hearing about that somewhere on here. Or was that a ./ myth?

Sure. In America, it is still legal to own guns and carry them in most public places (usually requiring a permit if the weapon is concealed). It may be important to note that of all the Tea Party rallies, no weapons were ever fired, or at least nobody was killed. Going out on a limb here, but I think terrorists usually use their guns to kill as many people as they can, so maybe the term "terrorist" is misapplied to Tea Party people. There were actually a few cases of rape and even murder among the Occupiers, but it's just as ridiculous to call them terrorists.

Re:Not funny when it happens to you, is it? (5, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567342)

To be fair, I don't think there have been any Tea Party protests where the cops have turned up and pepper-sprayed people for having the audacity to sit still - actually, have there been any Tea Party protests at all? I know they've had the odd rally, but I can't think of any actual protests.

Point being, it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

Re:Not funny when it happens to you, is it? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567388)

That's because the media has been instructed to paint them positively, since they serve the same master. Occupy, too, will either be snuffed out or subverted by those in power. Hard to imagine "small government" folks voting republican after colossal fuckups like nixon, reagan, and bush II isn't it? Amazing what a little propaganda will do.

I found Doctorow's quote more powerful (4, Informative)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567148)

"So when I get into a car - a computer I put my body into - with my hearing aid - a computer I put inside my body - I want to know that these technologies are not designed to keep secrets from me, and to prevent me from terminating processes on them that work against my interests."

what about Ted? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567176)

And how long until Ted's rants [wikipedia.org] are proven mostly right?

Re:what about Ted? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567320)

Do you mean that the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race?

Flamebait (2, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567214)

This article is nothing but flamebait. It's misleading and incorrect and designed only to generate mass negative posts. Enough already, I know this is slashdot but this is too much.

This argument is a non sequitur (1)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567230)

Lots of other people also pointed to a loss of more and more freedom. (Libertarians have been doing it for longer than Stallman has, for instance, and they're consistent instead of obsessing about one issue.) To pick out this one issue and claim that it means "Stallman was right" doesn't make any sense. Stallman might not trust government, but then, many other people also don't trust government -- and they don't necessarily agree with Stallman's views. So it's some pretty screwy logic to claim that this proves Stallman was right about anything.

...And everything that goes with it (-1, Troll)

amightywind (691887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567234)

Obama is a Marxist, with everything that goes along with that label, including the abuse of human rights? Why act surprised?

"Last Year", Really? (0)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567248)

Didn't he sign it on Dec 31st? As in, 2 days ago?

Also, while the fundamental concern is solid, one could point to many other (who sound less insane) people who have been trying to warn us about this.

Re:"Last Year", Really? (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567330)

Yeah that's pretty much the definition of "last year". Would you prefer they wrote "this year" so as to be incorrect?

Oy vey... (2)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567286)

Stuff like this is why I have no idea how you fight this sort of thing. The average person doesn't care. The people I talk about this to in RL look at me and ask what the problem is as it would never be them that gets targeted. Oh no.

All of this has gotten so bad that you look like a tin hat wearer just trying to explain what is going on now.

Who? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567336)

What Stallman? the founder of GNU? Jesus Christ! That man is a maniac. Don't tell me that a person who doesn't know what a graphic user interface is and that is communist can think and is normal...

youre the anormal here (1, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567418)

Don't tell me that a person who doesn't know what a graphic user interface is and that is communist can think and is normal...

you are the fucked up moron here, and your ilk is the one continually voting morons who are passing such dastardly bills into power.

in any other part of the world, after spending this sentence, you wouldnt be even labeled politely with the label of 'stupid'. people would think you were either
a) moron
b) bloodthirsty fascist

but thankfully, in america it is free to be a fascist and then claim to the contrary that everyone else is.

rejoice ! capitalists are going to throw you in infinite detention without cause, LEGALLY, OPENLY, and merrily.

in all kinds of twisted country which bastardized communism with dictatorship, such things were done secretly, behind the doors, without there being anything in the open - they were not particularly compatible with the political ideals.

but, mind-fuckingly, doing such things seems completely compatible with the political ideals of 'freedom' that exists in capitalism ! rejoice !! did i tell that it is going to be openly legal to do so too ?

Android != GNU (1)

rzr (898397) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567340)

The article started not that bad, but not through the end "This is why you should support Android " Seriously ??? Quoting mr RMS : "Even though the Android phones of today are considerably less bad than Apple or Windows smartphones, they cannot be said to respect your freedom." http://digitizor.com/2011/09/20/richard-stallman-android-free-software/ [digitizor.com] I am not here for bashing android, but where are the GNU phones folks ? openmoko ? meego/maemo ? tizen ?

A broken clock... (0)

DogDude (805747) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567376)

... is still right twice a day. I think that applies here.

I stopped reading (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38567400)

After this "Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world"

You want to claim ignorance. Do it on your own time. I can't go there. How many rapes, murders, molestations- not to mention- Oh "Trespassing" across the world. Last I checked, that was a crime too.

...except that Congress passed it overwhelmingly.. (3, Informative)

smagruder (207953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38567428)

in a veto-proof manner, after Obama had the language softened, and it doesn't apply to any random American, and it doesn't apply to anyone labeled a 'terrorist', only to people associated with specific terrorist groups.

I don't agree with the slippery slope this legislation started, but please, Enough With the Sensationalism.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>