Comments on: rivers of babylon

rivers of babylon

telstar — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:14:48 -0800

95 theses of geek activism (via)

By: matthewr

matthewr — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:44:16 -0800

I think the last one rather contradicts the other 94.

By: beerbajay

beerbajay — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:51:19 -0800

Meh. Vaguely good ideas, poorly written.

By: muddgirl

muddgirl — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:52:38 -0800

93. You have the right to anonymity on the internet. What-what-what??

By: robla

robla — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:53:59 -0800

It's hard to take this list seriously after #1 - "Reclaim the term 'hacker'". That word is long gone, and everyone should just move on - as Brad Templeton pointed out in 1989.

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:54:53 -0800

This list sort of typifies what I love and hate about geeks. On one hand, they're (mostly) a bunch of smart people who have this neat liberal/libertarian ethic involving liberating information, spurring global creativity, and all that wonderful stuff. And then on the other hand there's asisine crap like The Cathedral and the Bazaar. And some of my favorite people in the world are huge computer geeks, but then there are times when they'll disappear for months playing WoW or EVE, or they'll practically blow a gasket 'cause someone prefers Ruby to PHP or OSX to Linux or what have you.

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:59:33 -0800

It's hard to take this list seriously after #1 - "Reclaim the term 'hacker'". It seems to me that the obsolescence of the term is all the more reason to reclaim it. The popularity of people like Paul Graham attests to that. In fact, it's arguable that we're well on our way to doing this. I might just be too close to the issue, though :)

By: washburn

washburn — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:24:31 -0800

BURN HIM! BURN HIM!

By: weston

weston — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:26:41 -0800

Republicans may seem to be the enemy, but that is only because they are in power now. The true enemy is a lack of accountability. Best statement of the lot, I think. I wonder sometimes, though, if the problem is really strictly fixable. Mechanisms for accountability are built into our formal system, but culturally, it seems like we don't place a value on paying close attention, let alone participating.

By: rollbiz

rollbiz — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:36:03 -0800

weston, I think that value has been re-assigned to Idol and other things that are not nearly as important to pay attention to. Look at a poll in which people are asked to name Supreme Court justices, and look at one where they are to name menu items at McDonald's. I know people who can tell me every Survivor contestant in the history of the show or give me stats for eveyone on the New England Patriots football team, etc. Our ability to pay close attention has not waned, we just need to reaffirm for ourselves and encourage in others the importance of paying attention to the most important mechanisms of our democracy on a local, state, and federal level. ...Not that it will be that easy, but...

By: WetherMan

WetherMan — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:40:21 -0800

re: hacker. I've noticed that the term hacker is making a comeback these days, and in the good way. Am I the only one?

By: Joe Invisible

Joe Invisible — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:40:43 -0800

2. Violating a license agreement is not theft. True. But it is a breach of contract. As for "hacker", there are some places that have never lost the true spirit of the word.

By: th3ph17

th3ph17 — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:05:43 -0800

the use of hacker i object to is in gaming....if someone is cheating, it should be called a cheat--not a hack. If you code it yourself, call it a hack. also on my list of bad word use...specifically insults that shouldn't be used is cocksucker, because i'm opposed to anything that directs negative connotations at that pastime. Its bad for everyone. but that is a whole other askmefi thread.

By: cillit bang

cillit bang — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:43:54 -0800

If you tinker with electronics, you are a hacker. If you use things in more ways than intended by the manufacturer, you are a hacker. If you build things out of strange, unexpected parts, you are a hacker. Reclaim the term. Hang on, are they endorsing the horrible MAKE-led dilution of the term? And blindly listing the fucking EFF corporation as a force for good? It's like a rote guide on how to be a whiney wannabe internet dweeb just like the millions of others.

By: pompomtom

pompomtom — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:31:26 -0800

All corporations are not on your side. Ummmm... no shit sherlock? Who's the mong who thought they were? Oh, and for number 6, I think we need to add "...but don't hold your breath".

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:40:57 -0800

"#1 - "Reclaim the term 'hacker'"" If you type pulp detective novels on a manual typewriter, you are a hacker. Oh, wait, you didn't mean really reclaim it...

By: blasdelf

blasdelf — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:14:07 -0800

Seriously, cillit bang, I'm with you. Fuck "Make:" magazine. Fuck it right in it's "wholly-owned by an enormous publishing/hype/conference company" asshole. The same goddamn company whose CEO started calling shit "Web 2.0".

By: robla

robla — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:16:55 -0800

If you type pulp detective novels on a manual typewriter, you are a hacker. Oh, wait, you didn't mean really reclaim it... Precisely. The affection that many nerds have for this word baffles me, and that it shows up on the top of a list of socio-political things that we're allegedly supposed to care about just demonstrates why nerds get ignored. I say this as a nerd myself. To spell it out for the slow ones, look up "hack" in the dictionary.

By: palmcorder_yajna

palmcorder_yajna — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:18:16 -0800

#96: The most important of all human rights is the right to sovereignty over your gadgets. Prioritize accordingly.

By: converge

converge — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:18:28 -0800

Question, not criticism: is this of any real value?

By: blasdelf

blasdelf — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:36:38 -0800

No, it is worthless. It is tailor-written, and badly at that, to appeal to the duggalos, especially the boingboing crowd (he mentions cory by name as a leading 'geek philosopher').

By: blasdelf

blasdelf — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:47:28 -0800

the digg post – at least he didn't post it there himself, which is pretty damn rare, as nearly all posts on digg are self-links.

By: dkg

dkg — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:47:47 -0800

2. Violating a license agreement is not theft. [...] 32. The GPL is not gospel, but it comes close. Uh, ok. but you can't really have it both ways. saying "it's not theft" implies that there's nothing wrong with it (though it does provide a weaselly backdoor so you can say "oh, i didn't say it was OK, just that it's not theft" later). The GPL is, at its core, a licensing agreement. If you think it's OK to violate license agreements, why should anyone respect the limitations the GPL sets? The real answer is to not accept bullshit licensing agreements in the first place, even if you really want to play with that new piece of commercial software or listen to that new DRM'ed band. Just don't do it. Instead, pick software or music that respects you in the way that it is licensed.

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:39:10 -0800

dkg: I don't think it is at all suggesting it's ok, there is nothing weasely about it, it's recognising that this whole "infringement = theft" propaganda almost certainly has to be broken or reined in or a major battle for rights is already lost, and the future will be bleaker for it. It's about leveling the field of an important debate, not about saying geeks are allowed to break the law.

By: telstar

telstar — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:47:42 -0800

All corporations are not on your side. I wondered about this too. Is the meaning here "Not every corp is on your side" or "every corp is not on your side"?

By: pompomtom

pompomtom — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:58:06 -0800

"it's not theft" implies that there's nothing wrong with it False dichotomy. Murder isn't theft either.

By: blasdelf

blasdelf — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:39:06 -0800

dkg is making a great point: Anytime somebody decides not to abide by the terms of the GPL, a licensing agreement, the duggalos scream bloody murder, calling it theft and generally freaking the fuck out, all while patting each other on the back for not abiding by other onerous licenses. It's fine for them to sample corporate crap in their crappy mash-ups, but if some marketing guy used a snippet of their crappy youtube video, they'd stir up mob-justice. Idiots.

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:53:32 -0800

blasdelf: No, the point that there are idiots on the net is not at all related to the misconception that the 95 contradicts it's support of GPL by allegedly insinuating that infringement ceases to be a crime if it is recognised as infringement, instead of something it's not.

By: A Thousand Baited Hooks

A Thousand Baited Hooks — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 04:05:23 -0800

2. Violating a license agreement is not theft. [...] 32. The GPL is not gospel, but it comes close.

Well, it's not that easy to actually violate the GPL, because it doesn't create many (any?) restrictions on the licensee (except the disclaimer part). It just grants a conditional exemption from some of the restrictions already existing under copyright law. Most things which may look like GPL violation are actually copyright infringement. I think 2 is referring to things like shrink-wrap/click-through licences which go further than copyright. Or am I being too charitable?

By: cillit bang

cillit bang — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:46:29 -0800

Way too charitable. It's not creative commons or the BSD license. The GPL, like all other software licenses, grants you permission to use the software but only if you stick to the publisher's terms, which require you to release anything you create using GPL'ed code under the GPL and to include the source code. (Though if it weren't completely joyless there'd be something a bit punk rock about using a commercial-style license to undermine commercial software)

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:07:55 -0800

spiderwire writes "they'll practically blow a gasket 'cause someone prefers Ruby to PHP or OSX to Linux or what have you" Everyone is a geek about something. th3ph17 writes "specifically insults that shouldn't be used is cocksucker, because i'm opposed to anything that directs negative connotations at that pastime. Its bad for everyone. but that is a whole other askmefi thread" I never noticed the universality of that insult, interesting. dkg writes "Uh, ok. but you can't really have it both ways. saying 'it's not theft' implies that there's nothing wrong with it (though it does provide a weaselly backdoor so you can say 'oh, i didn't say it was OK, just that it's not theft' later).

"The GPL is, at its core, a licensing agreement. If you think it's OK to violate license agreements, why should anyone respect the limitations the GPL sets? The real answer is to not accept bullshit licensing agreements in the first place, even if you really want to play with that new piece of commercial software or listen to that new DRM'ed band. " These statements aren't saying licenses are worthless go nuts. They are saying that the punishments being handed out for infringement are only exceeded in their ridiculousnesses by those handed out to drug users. Those people being shaken down by the RIAA to the tune of $10,000 aren't costing the RIAA anywhere even close to that amount. It's legalized extortion, the Mafia never had it so good. And part justifying it is the attempted association of infringement with theft. Its bogus and irrational.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:25:44 -0800

Some advocates of the GPL consider it a stop-gap measure. Copyleft clauses shouldn't be necessary, but until some revolution in IP law comes about, they don't object to using copyright and license law to enforce copyleft.

By: Scoo

Scoo — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:37:45 -0800

Murder isn't theft either. Hell of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:59:17 -0800

These statements aren't saying licenses are worthless go nuts. They are saying that the punishments being handed out for infringement are only exceeded in their ridiculousnesses by those handed out to drug users. Um, downloading music is not breaching a license. No one is licensed to put music owned by an RIAA member on the internet for download. Downloading music IS theft. And if you think the RIAA is bad, you should note that there are actually criminal penalities for copyright infringement, including prison time.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:47:08 -0800

Pastabagel writes "Downloading music IS theft" No, it's not. When one downloads a piece of music it doesn't magically disappear from the source at the same time (minus whatever a whack DRM scheme is doing). You are making a copy infringing on the copyright of the owner. Assuming of course the work hasn't fallen into the public domain. Which used to happen on a fairly regularilly basis until The Mouse et.al. extended copyright terms to 6+ generations. Pastabagel writes "And if you think the RIAA is bad, you should note that there are actually criminal penalities for copyright infringement, including prison time." I know. As I said it is a level of batshitinsane only superseded by locking someone up (for life in some cases) for ingesting a naturally occurring herb.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:33:27 -0800

Scrolling down the "my comments" view without reading everything is dangerous. I was just about to say nearly the exact same thing as Mitheral, only I was gonna be all dickish about it. Thank God for Mitheral, mitigating the opportunities for me to be a dick on the internet!

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:54:14 -0800

Loved this post, Thanks. YAYY geek activists! woo hoo! Right on!