freenode #wikipedia

2008-04-21 14:58 < zocky> The359, there's no such thing as "president of cuba"
2008-04-21 14:58 < zocky> it's like having the article "king of USA"
2008-04-21 14:58 < The359> and I'm sure the article explains that
2008-04-21 14:59 < patbam> hi, what's the right policy to refer to for removing the addition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reid_Bryson&diff=206439528&oldid=178120824 copyvio?
2008-04-21 14:59 < zocky> to use a more realistic example, it's like keeping the article on USSR at "russia"
2008-04-21 14:59 < zocky> because that was the most commonly used name in english all along
2008-04-21 15:00 < The359> assuming those who spoke of "Russia" were referring to all surrounding countries
2008-04-21 15:00 < zocky> they were, yes
2008-04-21 15:00 < quanticle> zocky: There's a difference there. The US government recognized the USSR, but the US military does not recognize the S-125. It only recognizes the SA-3.
2008-04-21 15:00 < zocky> everybody called USSR russia when it existed
2008-04-21 15:00 < ShakespeareFan00> Hey
2008-04-21 15:00 < ShakespeareFan00> I need some help
2008-04-21 15:00 < The359> they said Russia
2008-04-21 15:00 < zocky> quanticle, what does US government have to do with anything?
2008-04-21 15:01 < The359> but that doesn't mean they were referring to all USSR countries
2008-04-21 15:01 < zocky> The359, there was only one USSR country at the time
2008-04-21 15:01 < quanticle> zocky: If you're talking about weapons, you should use the terms that the military uses.
2008-04-21 15:01 < zocky> and that was what was called russia
2008-04-21 15:01 < zocky> quanticle, which military?
2008-04-21 15:01 < The359> erm, what?
2008-04-21 15:01 < quanticle> zocky: NATO common designation.
2008-04-21 15:01 < The359> USSR was a collective
2008-04-21 15:01 < zocky> USSR was a country
2008-04-21 15:01 < The359> The separate countries still existed
2008-04-21 15:01 < zocky> like US
2008-04-21 15:01 < zocky> and the states still exist
2008-04-21 15:02 < quanticle> zocky: They were created for this reason - to keep the disparate NATO militaries from having divergent nomenclature.
2008-04-21 15:02 < zocky> quanticle, what does NATO have to do with wikipedia?
2008-04-21 15:02 < The359> they were Union Republics
2008-04-21 15:02 < zocky> wikipedia isn't a member of NATo
2008-04-21 15:02 < quanticle> zocky: I believe that en Wikipedia should use NATO designations for dealing with Soviet weapons.
2008-04-21 15:03 < zocky> The359, they were members of the federation, like US states, or german states are now
2008-04-21 15:03 < zocky> The359, the country was called USSR, and all the western papers called it Russia, as did most politicians
2008-04-21 15:03 < zocky> quanticle, that's hardly NPOV
2008-04-21 15:03 < quanticle> zocky: In the English speaking world, NATO designation are far more recognized than the "true" Soviet designations.
2008-04-21 15:03 < The359> I'm sure they had more independence than any state
2008-04-21 15:03 < The359> and autonomy
2008-04-21 15:04 < quanticle> zocky: Its hardly NPOV, but your stance is hardly practical.
2008-04-21 15:04 < zocky> The359, it's irrelevant for this discussion
2008-04-21 15:04 < MessedRocker> If you think this is POV pushing, you've clearly never seen the Indian Muslim tag [[Category:Wikinews]] with a Neutrality Disputed tag on Wikinews
2008-04-21 15:04 < zocky> Russia was the common word for USSR
2008-04-21 15:04 < zocky> quanticle, why? I'd guess india, a country with a lot of english speakers, uses original designations
2008-04-21 15:04 < The359> and it's a more common word for a country
2008-04-21 15:04 < The359> hence it's a separate article
2008-04-21 15:04 < zocky> since it's not in NATO
2008-04-21 15:05 < The359> because they're separate entities
2008-04-21 15:05 < zocky> The359, we could call the article [[Russia (1920-1992)]]
2008-04-21 15:05 < zocky> it we really wanted the most commonly used name
2008-04-21 15:05 < zocky> but we don't really want it, because it's wrong
2008-04-21 15:05 < quanticle> zocky: As an Indian, I can say that India uses its own designations, which are different from the original Soviet designations and NATO designations.
2008-04-21 15:05 < The359> because it's a different country
2008-04-21 15:06 < zocky> quanticle, ok, so why then use NATO and not indian designations?
2008-04-21 15:06 < The359> we have articles for every time a country changes its government
2008-04-21 15:06 < zocky> The359, it doesn't matter what's the true nature of it, all we want is the most common name, right?
2008-04-21 15:06 < The359> Russia is the most common name for Russia
2008-04-21 15:06 < The359> not the USSR
2008-04-21 15:06 < zocky> but it's also the most common name for USSR
2008-04-21 15:06 < The359> so?
2008-04-21 15:06 < zocky> we have disambiguation
2008-04-21 15:07 < zocky> we don't worry about duplicates when we chose the most common name
2008-04-21 15:07 < The359> the USSR is mentioned in the article
2008-04-21 15:07 < quanticle> zocky: Because the NATO designation is the one that's most commonly used. When discussing Russian weapons with the West, Indian diplomats will often use NATO designations to avoid confusion.
2008-04-21 15:07 < zocky> the point is that the most common names are sometimes wrong
2008-04-21 15:07 < The359> no shit?
2008-04-21 15:07 < The359> Really
2008-04-21 15:07 < zocky> or inappropriate for an encyclopedia if you want
2008-04-21 15:07 < The359> I already said that 20 fucking minutes ago
2008-04-21 15:07 < The359> Bravo
2008-04-21 15:07 < The359> we don't care if it is a 100% correct title
2008-04-21 15:08 < zocky> The359, but we do, that's what I've been trying to tell you
2008-04-21 15:08 < The359> no, we don't
2008-04-21 15:08 < zocky> if we didn't, we'd keep USSR at Russia
2008-04-21 15:08 < The359> the correct title can go in the article
2008-04-21 15:08 < The359> which has always been policy
2008-04-21 15:08 < quanticle> zocky: Like it or not, the NATO designations for these weapons have become the de-facto means of referring to them.
2008-04-21 15:08 < zocky> we'd have an article called "queen of england"
2008-04-21 15:08 < The359> the title of the page in which it exists does not have to be correct
2008-04-21 15:09 < zocky> quanticle, does indian military use english?
2008-04-21 15:10 < ShakespeareFan00> I am removing links to Google Books
2008-04-21 15:10 < zocky> ShakespeareFan00, why?
2008-04-21 15:10 < ShakespeareFan00> i) Google Books has un-free terms
2008-04-21 15:10 < quanticle> zocky: It does. English is one of the official languages of India.
2008-04-21 15:10 < ShakespeareFan00> ii) Google Books Copyright attitude is inconsistent
2008-04-21 15:10 < zocky> ShakespeareFan00, free content is not a requirement for links, so (i) is irrelevant
2008-04-21 15:10 < ShakespeareFan00> iii) Provider duality
2008-04-21 15:11 < quanticle> ShakespeareFan00: Provider duality?
2008-04-21 15:11 < zocky> quanticle, and it uses russian weapons, right?
2008-04-21 15:11 < quanticle> zocky: Yep.
2008-04-21 15:11 < Working_Cat> zocky: among others, yes
2008-04-21 15:11 < zocky> quanticle, i'd wager that the most commonly used english names for russian weapons are the ones that indian military uses
2008-04-21 15:11 < ShakespeareFan00> quanticle : Links to book sources should unless it's a specfic link not favour one source over another
2008-04-21 15:12 < Working_Cat> zocky: are you basing that on population?
2008-04-21 15:12 < zocky> Working_Cat, population, how often they need to refer to russian weapons, etc.
2008-04-21 15:12 < ShakespeareFan00> Provider Daulity ought to be policy in relation to citing works...
2008-04-21 15:13 < Working_Cat> i have a nagging feeling that the weapons were renamed in india
2008-04-21 15:13 < R45> Is one better than none though?
2008-04-21 15:13 < ShakespeareFan00> In other words putting in a cite as a name with link to just books.google.com is not 'acceptable'
2008-04-21 15:14 < Working_Cat> but i cant think of any real examples
2008-04-21 15:14 < ShakespeareFan00> Linking to a specfic page deeper dwon in Google Books is
2008-04-21 15:14 < quanticle> zocky: However, you must also take into account that the Indian government did not (until very recently) simply purchase weapons. The Indian government purchased rights to produce weapons. This is why the Indian military had so many more Russian arms than Western arms. Therefore, since the weapons were largely being produced in India (with Indian modifications in many cases), the Indian military has a bit more justification in using non-stan
2008-04-21 15:14 < R45> ShakespeareFan00: That's pretty obvious, that's the general policy with all sites
2008-04-21 15:14 < Working_Cat> heh quanticle, i was gonna mention that "licensed production" issue
2008-04-21 15:15 < ShakespeareFan00> However I am finding lot's of 'root page' linking
2008-04-21 15:15 < ShakespeareFan00> Which I am removing
2008-04-21 15:15 < quanticle> zocky: The Indian military was (until very recently) essentially producing its own version of the Russian weapons it "bought".
2008-04-21 15:15 < zocky> quanticle, fair enough. what I'm saying is that the most commonly used names in english are probably not those that NATO uses, so we might as well keep the articles at indian names, if we really want the most common name as the only criterion
2008-04-21 15:15 < Ceiling_Cat> Hello folks!
2008-04-21 15:16 < ShakespeareFan00> Depending on context I am also replacing Google Books 'root linking' with a wiki link
2008-04-21 15:16 < Working_Cat> zocky: i think the indians used their own names, which were hardly used outside india.
2008-04-21 15:16 < The359> Why would the Indian name be more common than a name used by the Americans, British, Japanese, and other English speaking Europeans?
2008-04-21 15:16 < zocky> Working_Cat, it doesn't matter where, if we want to establish "commonly used"
2008-04-21 15:16 < quanticle> zocky: I think this is one of the places where the different wikis ought to be allowed to diverge. By all means follow the Russian naming convention in the ru wikipedia, and allow NATO designations on the en Wikipedia. As long as the article mentions both names, and both names redirect to the same article, who cares?
2008-04-21 15:17 < Working_Cat> and going my frequency of usage, i'd say NATO people used them a LOT more
2008-04-21 15:17 < zocky> The359, because they have a lot of soldiers who need to refer to russian weapons a lot
2008-04-21 15:17 * Ceiling_Cat huggles Working_Cat
2008-04-21 15:17 < The359> I doubt their soldiers outnumber the combined NATO and other soldiers
2008-04-21 15:17 < The359> as well as general people who know about the military
2008-04-21 15:17 * Working_Cat huggles back. and in the process pinches the razor from Ceiling_Cat 's back pocket
2008-04-21 15:18 < quanticle> Working_Cat: I suspect the Russian soldiers would have referred to their own weapons a bit more than the NATO soldiers would have referred to them.
2008-04-21 15:18 < Working_Cat> The359, zocky : they dont. also, weapons names are hardly discussed in general population.
2008-04-21 15:19 < zocky> most NATO soldiers dont' speak english
2008-04-21 15:19 < zocky> so even if they use the NATO names, that's not "usage in english"
2008-04-21 15:19 < The359> English is the most common language amongst NATO nations
2008-04-21 15:19 < Working_Cat> quanticle: my point was wrt Indian names. imo, the russian weapons should be called by their original names. if we want accuratcy, and the NATO names should redirect to russian names.
2008-04-21 15:19 < quanticle> Actually, I think the best solution is to use model numbers. For example, with the S-125, have the article title be S-125, and have both Neva and Goa redirect to that page.
2008-04-21 15:20 < zocky> quanticle, they also have different numbers
2008-04-21 15:20 < zocky> quanticle, nato calls it SA-3
2008-04-21 15:20 < quanticle> Working_Cat: But what about cases in which we don't know the original Soviet name.
2008-04-21 15:20 < Working_Cat> yeah that jas the highest value of logical+accurate
2008-04-21 15:20 < Working_Cat> quanticle: hmmmm
2008-04-21 15:20 < zocky> we do know the russian names for almost all their weapons
2008-04-21 15:20 < The359> the Hungarian article actually lists it as SZ-125
2008-04-21 15:21 < quanticle> zocky: Ah. Ok. I know that for certain weapons, like fighter planes, NATO knows and uses the Soviet numbering scheme.
2008-04-21 15:21 < Working_Cat> actually, i did not quite consider the fact that call names were different from model name/numbers
2008-04-21 15:21 < AwesomeGuy> the ogg file players in articles mess up firefox
2008-04-21 15:21 < zocky> quanticle, officially, russia is an ally of NATO. they don't really hide trivial things from them.
2008-04-21 15:21 < AwesomeGuy> shouldn't that be fixed..
2008-04-21 15:21 < Working_Cat> AwesomeGuy: thats been said before.
2008-04-21 15:21 < AwesomeGuy> well why does wikipedia use buggy players
2008-04-21 15:22 < AwesomeGuy> flash-based players would be alot better
2008-04-21 15:22 < zocky> AwesomeGuy, talk to adobe about GPLing flash
2008-04-21 15:22 < AwesomeGuy> wtf is gpl
2008-04-21 15:22 < AwesomeGuy> you don't need a license to use flash on websites
2008-04-21 15:22 < AwesomeGuy> who told you that
2008-04-21 15:22 < zocky> AwesomeGuy, we don't WANT to use non-GPLed stuff
2008-04-21 15:22 < MessedRocker> AwesomeGuy, it's not that, it's that Wikipedia's participants have some hippie ideals about free software
2008-04-21 15:22 < zocky> it's not about if you're allowed to
2008-04-21 15:22 < quanticle> zocky: I'm talking about the old Soviet days too. For "big weapons", like planes and boats, the Soviets shared model numbers. For sm
2008-04-21 15:23 < AwesomeGuy> that's retarded.
2008-04-21 15:23 < MessedRocker> So even though Flash can be used freely on websites, it's not enough, because of the standards for software.
2008-04-21 15:23 < quanticle> For small weapns they didn't
2008-04-21 15:23 < Lycurgus> prolly
2008-04-21 15:23 < AwesomeGuy> how do i fix the player screwing up firefox
2008-04-21 15:23 < zocky> AwesomeGuy, yes, as retarded as having a free encyclopedia
2008-04-21 15:23 < zocky> look where our retardedness got us
2008-04-21 15:23 < Lycurgus> confusion between copyrights on the server software and the files produced by the tools.
2008-04-21 15:23 < MessedRocker> zocky: retardation*
2008-04-21 15:23 < AwesomeGuy> it got you buggy sound players.
2008-04-21 15:23 < AwesomeGuy> thats what it got you.
2008-04-21 15:23 < quanticle> AwesomeGuy: Just download the file then, and play it locally.
2008-04-21 15:24 < Simon-> how is a flash based player accessible compared to using the browser's own player?
2008-04-21 15:24 < zocky> AwesomeGuy, it also got us the biggest encyclopedia in the world
2008-04-21 15:24 < MessedRocker> quanticle, seriously, only seven people know how to play Ogg files
2008-04-21 15:24 < zocky> AwesomeGuy, you're welcome to try to repeat the experiment with non-free ideals and get back to us with the results
2008-04-21 15:24 < AwesomeGuy> I have java 1.6.0_02, is that the newest
2008-04-21 15:24 < quanticle> MessedRocker: In Windows perhaps. OSX and Linux handle OGG just fine.
2008-04-21 15:24 < MessedRocker> zocky, there is no need to be arrogant
2008-04-21 15:25 < Working_Cat> does anyone know if #people_using(FireFox) > #wikipedia_readers or the other way round
2008-04-21 15:25 < AwesomeGuy> neither are real channels..
2008-04-21 15:25 * Working_Cat facepalms
2008-04-21 15:25 < zocky> MessedRocker, true enough. it's just that people who both think that free-content ideals are retarded AND care about how wikipedia works at the same time, deserve the arrogance.
2008-04-21 15:25 < Working_Cat> i wasnt asking you anyways AwesomeGuy
2008-04-21 15:26 < MessedRocker> No one deserves arrogance. Everyone deserves education.
2008-04-21 15:26 < Axeman> WOW
2008-04-21 15:26 < Working_Cat> hey Rustwire
2008-04-21 15:26 < Axeman> I HAVE THE BEST SCRIPT EVER
2008-04-21 15:26 < quanticle> Working_Cat: Its difficult to tell, since the sets aren't exactly disjoint.
2008-04-21 15:26 < Krimpet> Working_Cat, I'd guess there's probably more WP readers than FF users.
2008-04-21 15:26 < Axeman> ...hahaha
2008-04-21 15:26 < AwesomeGuy> it's retarded to use a player that doesn;t work right and is free over a player that isn't and works right.
2008-04-21 15:26 < Axeman> my monobook is on steroids
2008-04-21 15:26 < MessedRocker> AwesomeGuy, I agree, but unfortunately the hippies have the upper hand
2008-04-21 15:26 < Axeman> I can file an AfD in >10 seconds
2008-04-21 15:26 < Axeman> the whole deal
2008-04-21 15:26 < quanticle> Krimpet: I'd be inclined to agree, since Wikipedia work perfectly well in IE.
2008-04-21 15:26 < zocky> AwesomeGuy, no, we don't want the non-free player at all, that's the point
2008-04-21 15:26 < ShakespeareFan00> :O
2008-04-21 15:26 < Axeman> adding template, creating discussion page, and listing
2008-04-21 15:26 < zocky> like we didn't want the non-free content
2008-04-21 15:26 < zocky> and we don't want ads
2008-04-21 15:27 < MessedRocker> Axeman, I can file an AFD in over ten seconds too. Big deal
2008-04-21 15:27 < AwesomeGuy> and that's the retarded part
2008-04-21 15:27 < Krimpet> FF users tend to be technically savvy already
2008-04-21 15:27 < ShakespeareFan00> AFD in 10 secs :O
2008-04-21 15:27 < Axeman> so
2008-04-21 15:27 < Axeman> oh whoops
2008-04-21 15:27 < Working_Cat> yeah, but if theres a lot more people using wiki compared to people using FF... AND that majority of FF users DO use wiki as well, then I say its FF's job to fix the ogg issue ;)
2008-04-21 15:27 < zocky> those are the basics that the project is based on
2008-04-21 15:27 < Axeman> in <10 seconds lol
2008-04-21 15:27 < ShakespeareFan00> FF has issues with Ogg?
2008-04-21 15:27 < MessedRocker> CIVIL RIGHTS FOR SOFTWARE!!!!
2008-04-21 15:27 * MessedRocker needs to be in windows vista for at least five more hours :|
2008-04-21 15:28 < quanticle> Axeman: Is that really a good thing? I though the entire point behind the AfD process was to allow for reflection and discussion about the article.
2008-04-21 15:28 < AwesomeGuy> if you play an ogg file in the player, everything you type becomes backwards
2008-04-21 15:28 * Working_Cat axes Axeman for hubris and haste.
2008-04-21 15:28 < quanticle> Working_Cat: I'd say its Wikipedia's job to fix the OGG player. There's no real excuse for having it be incompatible with Firefox.
2008-04-21 15:29 < zocky> AwesomeGuy, look at it this way: we want all the knowledge and all the bells and whistles that can be done without using closed-source solutions. we're not chosing between a working non-free player and a non-working free player. we are choosing only among free players.
2008-04-21 15:30 < zocky> the non-free player doesn't come into the picture at all
2008-04-21 15:30 < Working_Cat> quanticle: jeez, it was a joke. didnt you notice the < ;) > also, i'm not even sure if the problem is with OGG or the player - or even what player wiki uses.
2008-04-21 15:30 < tawker> hi Cream
2008-04-21 15:30 < Working_Cat> basically, i simply do not have enough info to make a valid comment.
2008-04-21 15:30 < AwesomeGuy> then fix the free player, atleast
2008-04-21 15:30 < quanticle> Working_Cat: Heh. Sorry. I guess my sarcasmometer is on the fritz.
2008-04-21 15:30 < zocky> AwesomeGuy, it's open source, you can fix it if it bothers you :)
2008-04-21 15:30 < Working_Cat> quanticle: too much java?
2008-04-21 15:30 < zocky> AwesomeGuy, alternatively, you could pay somebody to fix it
2008-04-21 15:31 < quanticle> Working_Cat: Yes. In both senses of the word.
2008-04-21 15:31 < Working_Cat> lol
2008-04-21 15:31 * Mike_H NP: Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson - Say Say Say (1983)
2008-04-21 15:31 * quanticle is off for a *very* late lunch
2008-04-21 15:31 < AwesomeGuy> wouldn't that go against this 'free software' thing
2008-04-21 15:31 < zocky> AwesomeGuy, no, it's free as in speech, not as in beer
2008-04-21 15:32 < ShakespeareFan00> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuarum#Don.27t_deep_Link_Google_Books_PDF.21.21 am I being unreasonable?
2008-04-21 15:32 < ShakespeareFan00> Any admins in?
2008-04-21 15:32 < AwesomeGuy> and what does free speech have to do with not using non-gpl stuff
2008-04-21 15:32 < quanticle|away> zocky: I've always found that phrase to be rather meaningless. Copyrighted information is still covered under free speech laws.
2008-04-21 15:32 < AwesomeGuy> with free software you get what you pay for
2008-04-21 15:32 < zocky> quanticle|away, it's about the sense of "free" that's meant
2008-04-21 15:33 < AwesomeGuy> usually
2008-04-21 15:33 < Shiroi_Neko> AwesomeGuy no
2008-04-21 15:33 < zocky> it doesn't mean that it's connected to the issue of free speech
2008-04-21 15:33 < ShakespeareFan00> AwsomeGuy: And with Windows you don't ;)
2008-04-21 15:33 < AwesomeGuy> some free software is good though, like Audacity
2008-04-21 15:33 < Shiroi_Neko> you get more than what you pay for
2008-04-21 15:33 < quanticle|away> AwesomeGuy: And with proprietary software you get *less* than what you pay for.
2008-04-21 15:34 < quanticle|away> Except for Photoshop. Photoshop is awesome.
2008-04-21 15:34 < R45> You know, generalisings either way are just as pointless
2008-04-21 15:34 < AwesomeGuy> and real free software fanatics use bittorrent to get stuff you have to pay for free
2008-04-21 15:34 < R45> generalisations even
2008-04-21 15:34 < zocky> real free software fanatics don't use proprietary software, regardless of the price
2008-04-21 15:35 < Aqwis> real free software fanatics are fanatics, thus...
2008-04-21 15:35 < ShakespeareFan00> AwsomeGuy: Real fres software people abhor warezers
2008-04-21 15:35 < ShakespeareFan00> *free
2008-04-21 15:35 < ShakespeareFan00> Seriosuly
2008-04-21 15:35 < quanticle|away> zocky: Its true. The free software movement has advanced to the point where you're actually able to accomplish all of your day-to-day needs with free software.
2008-04-21 15:35 < ShakespeareFan00> quanticle|away : ROFL
2008-04-21 15:35 < ShakespeareFan00> ROFL
2008-04-21 15:35 < ShakespeareFan00> ROFL
2008-04-21 15:36 < quanticle|away> ShakespeareFan00: Short of watching youtube, of course.
2008-04-21 15:36 < ShakespeareFan00> Maybe if you are prepared to be a bit of a geek
2008-04-21 15:36 < Aqwis> depends on your day-to-day needs
2008-04-21 15:36 < quanticle|away> ShakespeareFan00: That too.
2008-04-21 15:36 < ShakespeareFan00> You can play DVD's on 'free' software but it's a major hassle
2008-04-21 15:36 < Working_Cat> ShakespeareFan00: actually, even that is not a requirement these days
2008-04-21 15:36 < quanticle|away> Aqwis: Also that.
2008-04-21 15:36 < zocky> ShakespeareFan00, what's funny about it? the only non-free bit of software I have on my computer is flash, and I don't really need flash for anything but youtube and kongregate
2008-04-21 15:36 < Aqwis> if you need to interact with access databases regularly
2008-04-21 15:36 < ShakespeareFan00> You can't play Blu-Ray
2008-04-21 15:36 < ShakespeareFan00> (yet)
2008-04-21 15:37 * Krimpet finds herself allied more with the "open source" movement than the "free software" movement
2008-04-21 15:37 < Working_Cat> Aqwis: or Oracle
2008-04-21 15:37 < quanticle|away> ShakespeareFan00: Well, we can't really help that, since Blu_Ray has DRM standards that make it incompatible with free software.
2008-04-21 15:37 < zocky> ShakespeareFan00, well, if watching hollywood crap is part of your day-to-day needs, then you have a point :)
2008-04-21 15:37 < Messedrocker> CIVIL RIGHTS TO SOFTWARE!
2008-04-21 15:37 < AwesomeGuy> <ShakespeareFan00> AwsomeGuy: Real fres software people abhor warezers <-- wtf is abhor
2008-04-21 15:37 < Messedrocker> DEATH TO THE REDMOND SOFTWARE GULAG PROPRIETORS! HAIL RICHARD STALLMAN!
2008-04-21 15:37 < Messedrocker> LIBERATOR OF THE PEOPLES
2008-04-21 15:37 < ShakespeareFan00> BluRay exists because Holloywood isn't prepared to nuke chinise pirates
2008-04-21 15:37 * Working_Cat muzzles Messedrocker
2008-04-21 15:38 < quanticle|away> MessedRocker: Do you really want all the lousy, worm-infested Windows boxen on the net to have votes?
2008-04-21 15:38 < Messedrocker> quanticle|away, All Windows boxes are infested with worms?
2008-04-21 15:38 < Messedrocker> What's next, all Mac owners engage in sodomy?
2008-04-21 15:38 < ShakespeareFan00> MessedRocker: It's called Windows Update and
2008-04-21 15:38 < quanticle|away> MessedRocker: Enough to make the other 5% marginal.
2008-04-21 15:38 < Krimpet> Messedrocker, please navigate to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJUDx7iEJw and turn your speakers up full blast. :)
2008-04-21 15:38 < ShakespeareFan00> MessedRocker: Worse Mac people have sexual fetishes... :(
2008-04-21 15:38 < ShakespeareFan00> ;)
2008-04-21 15:38 < chesire_cat> ShakespeareFan00 : you've been reading too much macbeth
2008-04-21 15:38 < Rinn> I have an ant farm in my Windows box.
2008-04-21 15:38 < quanticle|away> Anyway
2008-04-21 15:38 < Working_Cat> Krimpet: are you rolling?
2008-04-21 15:39 * quanticle|away out for real
2008-04-21 15:39 * Working_Cat slaps Rinn
2008-04-21 15:39 < R45> Some elements of the free software movement have a neo-racist feel, the blind devotion to software based on its license not its quality, it's a stupid notion if you ask me
2008-04-21 15:39 < Working_Cat> for cruelty against ants
2008-04-21 15:39 < Working_Cat> and to mess up the stats
2008-04-21 15:39 < Messedrocker> R45, hence my troll
2008-04-21 15:39 * Mike_H NP: Michael Jackson - Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' (1983)
2008-04-21 15:39 < chesire_cat> there are trolls in wikipedia ? nooooo wayyyyyyy ..... :)
2008-04-21 15:39 < Krimpet> Working_Cat: it's not that Rick. it's Rick Stallman. :p
2008-04-21 15:39 < zocky> it's not about the quality of software, the prices, the gulags, or stallman
2008-04-21 15:39 < ShakespeareFan00> R45: Thier not as bad as zealots in the commercial world
2008-04-21 15:40 < Working_Cat> Krimpet: technically still a rickroll
2008-04-21 15:40 < zocky> it's about whether software should be treated different than mathematics
2008-04-21 15:40 * Working_Cat wipes the silly grin off chesire_cat 's face
2008-04-21 15:40 < zocky> if you ask me, software shouldn't be copyrightable at all
2008-04-21 15:40 < Messedrocker> When GNU OCR-Software-As-Good-As-The-$400-Stuff-Everyone-Pirates-Anyway comes out, let me know
2008-04-21 15:40 < ShakespeareFan00> :O
2008-04-21 15:40 < zocky> there are good arguments for granting software patents for non-trivial stuff
2008-04-21 15:41 < ShakespeareFan00> Messedrocker : Wasn't Cunieform going Open Source soon?
2008-04-21 15:41 < Messedrocker> Cuneiform is open source
2008-04-21 15:41 < zocky> and 20-year patents would hurt the rest of us much less than 90+ year copyrights
2008-04-21 15:41 < ShakespeareFan00> Zocky: 'idea' patents are bad
2008-04-21 15:41 < Messedrocker> I tried installing it, but the installer was in Russian. The installation failed for a reason I could not understand (because it was in Russian).
2008-04-21 15:41 < ShakespeareFan00> Imagine if you had to pay money to long divison
2008-04-21 15:41 < ShakespeareFan00> ;)
2008-04-21 15:41 < zocky> ShakespeareFan00, all patents are on ideas, really
2008-04-21 15:41 < Rinn> ShakespeareFan00: I'd have an excuse!
2008-04-21 15:42 < zocky> ShakespeareFan00, there is no logical difference between "specialized machine that does X" and "computer with installed software that does X"
2008-04-21 15:42 < AwesomeGuy> if you made something, and you want to sell it and not just give it away for free, you should be able to do so
2008-04-21 15:42 * Ceiling_Cat NP - [Tiny Tim] Tiptoe through the Tulips
2008-04-21 15:42 < ShakespeareFan00> Zocky: In the US maybe, the UK is different
2008-04-21 15:42 < AwesomeGuy> saying all software should be free is like saying food from a store should be free
2008-04-21 15:43 < ShakespeareFan00> 'Free' software is not a commidity like food
2008-04-21 15:43 < zocky> you can't give food away and keep it
2008-04-21 15:43 < ShakespeareFan00> And arguably all goods should be able to operate in a 'free' way
2008-04-21 15:44 < ShakespeareFan00> without the influcne of rich captial stealing billionares
2008-04-21 15:44 < zocky> software is not like food, it's more like technology than anything else
2008-04-21 15:44 < R45> It's a pointless argument either way because physical goods and electronic media are governed by separate laws
2008-04-21 15:44 < ShakespeareFan00> Patents originally existed to protect inventors from exploitation...
2008-04-21 15:44 < zocky> but now, it's treated as creative expression of an idea, which is pure bollocks
2008-04-21 15:44 < Messedrocker> ci-vil-rights-for-the-soft-ware
2008-04-21 15:44 < Messedrocker> la la la la la la
2008-04-21 15:45 < zocky> Messedrocker, it's about civil rights for people
2008-04-21 15:45 < ShakespeareFan00> They are rarely used by large firms with that intet these days
2008-04-21 15:45 < R45> zocky: Arguable for patents, but software copyrights give rights to the author
2008-04-21 15:46 < Krimpet> software shouldn't _have_ to be free. though on the other hand, the way "trusted" computing and such is supposed to lock out open source altogether is pretty disturbing
2008-04-21 15:46 < zocky> R45, yes, and they shouldn't
2008-04-21 15:46 < Messedrocker> Tiny Tim sounds like Alessandro Moreschi
2008-04-21 15:46 < ShakespeareFan00> Copyrights for software lost the plot about 5 years ago
2008-04-21 15:46 < R45> zocky: that isn't giving people much choice
2008-04-21 15:46 < R45> people in that case being authors
2008-04-21 15:46 < zocky> R45, there are existing ways to protect technological advances
2008-04-21 15:46 < zocky> R45, copyright is intended for creative works
2008-04-21 15:47 < zocky> and software isn't that
2008-04-21 15:47 < zocky> it's engineering, not art
2008-04-21 15:47 < R45> that's an opinion
2008-04-21 15:47 < zocky> in creative works, there are no correct solutions
2008-04-21 15:47 < ShakespeareFan00> Krimpet: Trusted computing is based on the myth that you can make something more secure by trust
2008-04-21 15:47 < ShakespeareFan00> OK it might work for a while, but black_hat anarchist warezer types will have better papers then genuine vendors ;)
2008-04-21 15:48 < R45> you're applying medieval definitions to modern things
2008-04-21 15:48 < zocky> R45, creative works don't get reissued in ever-improving versions. they're not required to produce correct results on use, etc., etc.
2008-04-21 15:48 < zocky> software is engineering, just like civil engineering, machine engineering, etc.
2008-04-21 15:48 < Krimpet> ShakespeareFan00, I think the folks responsible know they're just doing it as a beefed up DRM/copy protection mechanism, though. :/
2008-04-21 15:48 < Krimpet> it's certainly not going to prevent viruses, trojans, backdoors, etc.
2008-04-21 15:49 < Lycurgus> *commodity
2008-04-21 15:49 < Messedrocker> Windows Vista is very pretty
2008-04-21 15:49 < Shiroi_Neko> trojans are fun people
2008-04-21 15:49 < Messedrocker> But don't use Aero, use Vista Basic
2008-04-21 15:49 < ShakespeareFan00> DRM is a revenue protection method, not copy protection
2008-04-21 15:49 < Shiroi_Neko> SRM
2008-04-21 15:50 < Shiroi_Neko> LRM
2008-04-21 15:50 < Shiroi_Neko> MRM
2008-04-21 15:50 < Shiroi_Neko> ER PPC
2008-04-21 15:50 < Messedrocker> Power PC!
2008-04-21 15:50 < R45> ShakespeareFan00: well it is literally copy protection, for revenue
2008-04-21 15:51 * Krimpet is more concerned about protecting her box from Durexes
2008-04-21 15:51 < Shiroi_Neko> Messedrocker your ignorance is unbelieveable
2008-04-21 15:51 < ShakespeareFan00> Vista is bad news
2008-04-21 15:51 < ShakespeareFan00> Vista is broken in some respects
2008-04-21 15:51 < Working_Cat> Krimpet: i though Durexes actually protected your box
2008-04-21 15:51 < Working_Cat> ShakespeareFan00: "some"?
2008-04-21 15:51 < Krimpet> Working_Cat: that's what you think. :p
2008-04-21 15:51 < zocky> the whole idea that you can deliver content for viewing/listening and protect it from copying at the same time is beyond silly
2008-04-21 15:51 < ShakespeareFan00> Unless you need DX10 (which Wine is working on)
2008-04-21 15:51 < ShakespeareFan00> XP is more than adequate for most tasks
2008-04-21 15:51 < ShakespeareFan00> That or ReactOS
2008-04-21 15:51 < ShakespeareFan00> ;)
2008-04-21 15:52 < Working_Cat> Krimpet: atleast 93-97% of time ;)
2008-04-21 15:52 < ShakespeareFan00> zocky: Analouge ports ;)
2008-04-21 15:52 * Krimpet sticks with gutsy, it does everything I need. :)
2008-04-21 15:52 < Working_Cat> as in that much percent of time its actually used.
2008-04-21 15:52 < zocky> ShakespeareFan00, they don't even have to be analogue. just stick the end of your monitor cable into a copying machine and play the movie
2008-04-21 15:53 < Krimpet> oh, hey, 8.04's coming out tomorrow
2008-04-21 15:53 < Working_Cat> zocky: movie in photocopies?
2008-04-21 15:53 < Krimpet> er, 3 days
2008-04-21 15:53 < ShakespeareFan00> Erm I thought they'd changed the plugs to cope with that on more recent systems?
2008-04-21 15:53 * Shiroi_Neko tazers Messedrocker
2008-04-21 15:53 * Shiroi_Neko tazers Messedrocker harder
2008-04-21 15:53 < Krimpet> zocky: well, that's why they're working on the whole "Protected Media Path" thing
2008-04-21 15:53 * ShakespeareFan00 calls the cops on Shiroi_Neko
2008-04-21 15:53 < zocky> Working_Cat, not THAT kind of copying machine :)
2008-04-21 15:53 < R45> regardless of the flaws in DRM, the concept is warranted
2008-04-21 15:53 < Ashfire908> what does "No Derivatives" in a creative commons license mean?
2008-04-21 15:53 * Messedrocker neuters Shiroi_Neko
2008-04-21 15:54 * Shiroi_Neko tazers Messedrocker till he is permanantly inanimate
2008-04-21 15:54 < zocky> Krimpet, so what, they'll build DRM into monitors?
2008-04-21 15:54 < ShakespeareFan00> Ashfire908: Share it, but don't reuse
2008-04-21 15:54 < Krimpet> Ashfire908, you can only reproduce it verbatim
2008-04-21 15:54 < Shiroi_Neko> DRM?
2008-04-21 15:54 < ShakespeareFan00> zocky: Yes !
2008-04-21 15:54 < Ashfire908> does it disallow like putting it unmodified into another image?
2008-04-21 15:54 < Krimpet> zocky: sorta, yes.
2008-04-21 15:54 < Shiroi_Neko> Dull Ranged Missle?
2008-04-21 15:54 < ShakespeareFan00> Digital Restriction Managment
2008-04-21 15:54 < zocky> Krimpet, and what, ban normal monitors?
2008-04-21 15:54 < ShakespeareFan00> zocky: Yes!
2008-04-21 15:54 < Krimpet> zocky: [[High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection]]
2008-04-21 15:55 < Working_Cat> zocky: Yes!
2008-04-21 15:55 < Shiroi_Neko> HBDCP
2008-04-21 15:55 < zocky> does the recording industry really think it can win over the hardware industry
2008-04-21 15:55 < zocky> ?
2008-04-21 15:55 < Krimpet> they won't ban normal monitors, but they'll make sure you can't connect them to your "trusted" PC
2008-04-21 15:55 < ShakespeareFan00> WE MUST PRO-TECT OUR MEDIA ... ALL I-LLEGAL COPIES MUST BE EX-TER-MINATED!!! </dalek>
2008-04-21 15:55 < Shiroi_Neko> CCCB
2008-04-21 15:55 < R45> zocky: what's your opinion on digital media? no digital protection?
2008-04-21 15:55 < Krimpet> zocky, the hardware industry would make a pretty penny
2008-04-21 15:55 < ShakespeareFan00> zocky: Only in the US
2008-04-21 15:55 < Shiroi_Neko> ShakespeareFan00 you are n illegal copy
2008-04-21 15:56 < ShakespeareFan00> The Chinese will keep on making cheap copying tech ...
2008-04-21 15:56 < zocky> Krimpet, if they had to throw away all the stuff they produced but didn't sell until the cut-off date?
2008-04-21 15:56 < miranda> do you trust checkuser?
2008-04-21 15:56 < Shiroi_Neko> I wonder if a cmpany will ever sue people for illegaly copying (watching) their work?
2008-04-21 15:56 < ShakespeareFan00> because it's cheaper to make stuff that ignore tilt bits and so son
2008-04-21 15:56 < R45> ShakespeareFan00: until China becomes a cultural hearth, which might happen soon enough
2008-04-21 15:56 < ShakespeareFan00> Shirioi_Neko: The MAFIAA already tried :)
2008-04-21 15:56 < Shiroi_Neko> technicaly you copy it to your brain
2008-04-21 15:56 < Krimpet> zocky, I'm sure they'd phase it in somehow.
2008-04-21 15:57 < zocky> Krimpet, I know it didn't work when they tried it with CD recorders
2008-04-21 15:57 < ShakespeareFan00> R45: As in a major producer?
2008-04-21 15:57 < zocky> basically, the hardware industry told them to fuck off back then
2008-04-21 15:57 < Krimpet> heck, they're shutting down NTSC TV next(?) year
2008-04-21 15:57 < R45> ShakespeareFan00: Yes, then it won't be in their interest
2008-04-21 15:57 < ShakespeareFan00> zocky: That was when the Hardware industry and the media industry weren't the same firms
2008-04-21 15:57 < zocky> R45, physical prevention of copying went out of style in early 1980s because it was useless
2008-04-21 15:57 < Krimpet> all TVs sold... ever in the US will be useless without converter equipment
2008-04-21 15:58 < ShakespeareFan00> Krimpet: Thats true of DVB-T as well
2008-04-21 15:58 < R45> zocky: I agree, but what can be done to solve th redistribution issue?
2008-04-21 15:58 < R45> the*
2008-04-21 15:58 < ShakespeareFan00> Although at least DVB-T is at least technically un-encrypted most of the time
2008-04-21 15:58 < Ashfire908> does no derivatives with CC disallow it from being putting, unmodified, into another image?
2008-04-21 15:58 < zocky> R45, it's not as if microsoft and all those other companies that didn't have copy-protection in the 1990s weren't making money
2008-04-21 15:59 < ShakespeareFan00> DRM happened because some firms werent prepared to take the steps needed to be sensible
2008-04-21 15:59 < ShakespeareFan00> Like getting serious about breaking organised copyright violations...
2008-04-21 15:59 < Cream> Merry Christmas ShakespeareFan00!
2008-04-21 15:59 < zocky> all they need to do is go after people who make money on their copyrighted stuff
2008-04-21 15:59 < ShakespeareFan00> Rather than persecuting file sharers
2008-04-21 16:00 < zocky> and that's what they're succesfully doing any way
2008-04-21 16:00 < ShakespeareFan00> zocky: So why haven't they started putting pressure on the Chinese?
2008-04-21 16:00 < R45> so you're suggestion personal copyright violation is admissable?
2008-04-21 16:00 < zocky> companies generally don't use pirated software for business
2008-04-21 16:00 < R45> suggesting
2008-04-21 16:00 < R45> ie, peer to peer
2008-04-21 16:00 < zocky> movie theaters don't play pirated movies
2008-04-21 16:00 < ShakespeareFan00> Why does YouTube still host stuff even they must KNOW is copyvio
2008-04-21 16:01 < zocky> R45, it's unstoppable, and considered not to be immoral by the vast majority of people
2008-04-21 16:01 < ShakespeareFan00> If firms like YouTube activley policed thier content better DRM would have less of a case
2008-04-21 16:01 < R45> zocky: well that's saying that peer to peer is above copyright, and that's ridiculous
2008-04-21 16:01 < zocky> trying to prevent it will break a lot of stuff without actually achieveing anything useful
2008-04-21 16:01 < zocky> R45, copyright is not a natural right
2008-04-21 16:01 < R45> zocky: "natural"?
2008-04-21 16:02 < zocky> R45, it's a privilege granted on authors for the purpose of encouraging creativity
2008-04-21 16:02 < R45> zocky: there is no natural in law, legal frameworks are specific
2008-04-21 16:02 < zocky> R45, well, when you find a legal system where murder, theft and rape are not illegal, get back to me
2008-04-21 16:02 < ShakespeareFan00> if the MAFIAA wanted to get seriopus about copyright , it would lobby congress to allow sites to nuke 'suspected copyvio' without rights owners needing to go through hoops
2008-04-21 16:03 < R45> zocky: that doesn't quite make sense..
2008-04-21 16:03 < morwen> R45: common law, which is the legal tradition used in English speaking countries holds that murder and physical property are basic laws that did not need specific legislation to exist
2008-04-21 16:03 < morwen> R45: these are held to be "natural law"
2008-04-21 16:03 < ShakespeareFan00> Currently, to get copyvios's removed form You Tube, you have to go to court... Ok if you are Warner or FOX, not so much if you are a small PBS station
2008-04-21 16:03 < morwen> R45: this is actual legal terminology. you may think this is stupid. it remains however true.
2008-04-21 16:04 < zocky> R45, there are natural rights, which are accorded to people in all legal systems just because they're people, and there are privileges, which are accorded to people with intent to encourage things that the society thinks are positive
2008-04-21 16:04 < ShakespeareFan00> morwen: Is murder actually defined by statute at all?
2008-04-21 16:04 < Messedrocker> Actually you just need to send a DMCA takedown
2008-04-21 16:04 < Messedrocker> ShakespeareFan00, I suppose yes, to disambiguate between murder and manslaughter and things of that nature
2008-04-21 16:04 < ShakespeareFan00> MessedRocker: Sites shouldn't need a DCMA takedown to remove obviosu copyvios.
2008-04-21 16:04 < R45> zocky: very subjective that a natural right includes reproducing copyright works made by someone else
2008-04-21 16:05 < Messedrocker> DMCA
2008-04-21 16:05 < Messedrocker> Digital
2008-04-21 16:05 < ShakespeareFan00> I mean Wikipedia doesn't leave up images until the notices arrive
2008-04-21 16:05 < Messedrocker> Millennium
2008-04-21 16:05 < Messedrocker> Copyright Act
2008-04-21 16:05 < zocky> R45, that's not what I'm saying
2008-04-21 16:05 < ShakespeareFan00> Commons nukes on site :O
2008-04-21 16:05 < R45> zocky: subjective
2008-04-21 16:05 < R45> zocky: especially considering the media is not your creation
2008-04-21 16:05 < morwen> R45: nobody said that. they said that the right to stop other people reproducing works is not a natural right. but is an artificially created one, created by statute. courts have agreed with this.
2008-04-21 16:05 < ShakespeareFan00> Why can't sites like You Tube have policy that nukes works that aren't properly sourced?
2008-04-21 16:05 < zocky> R45, I'm saying that preventing other people from repeating your ideas is a concept invented in the 18th century for the purpose of encouraging creation.
2008-04-21 16:06 < ShakespeareFan00> Without rights owners needing to spend time and effort sending DMCA notices?
2008-04-21 16:06 < ShakespeareFan00> There is also an evil culture that ripping off media companies is a good thing because they can afford it... - small firms can't
2008-04-21 16:07 < ShakespeareFan00> The US does need to tackle 'serious organised' copy violations...
2008-04-21 16:07 < ShakespeareFan00> but it also needs to stop going for the easy soft targets ....
2008-04-21 16:08 < ShakespeareFan00> 'Examples' don't work in tackling copyright violation
2008-04-21 16:09 < R45> zocky: You do realise we live in a capitalist society?
2008-04-21 16:09 < ShakespeareFan00> Besides thier are better video upload sites..
2008-04-21 16:09 < zocky> R45, speak for yourself. I live in a mixed economy.
2008-04-21 16:09 < zocky> most european societies are explicitly not capitalist
2008-04-21 16:09 < ShakespeareFan00> R45: A captalist society is one that relies on exploitation of a majority by a minority
2008-04-21 16:09 < Shiroi_Neko> zocky lies
2008-04-21 16:09 < Ceiling_Cat> MOAR KATZ!
2008-04-21 16:09 < R45> ShakespeareFan00: generalisation
2008-04-21 16:09 < Shiroi_Neko> they just make it sound sociaist
2008-04-21 16:09 < ShakespeareFan00> for the puposes of the ecnomic enrichment of the minority
2008-04-21 16:09 < Working_Cat> MEOW!!
2008-04-21 16:10 < Shiroi_Neko> Ceiling_Cat so
2008-04-21 16:10 < ShakespeareFan00> This is not per-se a bad thing...
2008-04-21 16:10 * Ceiling_Cat wraps ShakespeareFan00 in fur
2008-04-21 16:10 < Shiroi_Neko> I have aquired top secret info
2008-04-21 16:10 < R45> ShakespeareFan00: that sounds like Adam Smith
2008-04-21 16:10 * Working_Cat glues whiskers and ears to ShakespeareFan00
2008-04-21 16:10 < Shiroi_Neko> Ceiling_Cat I now know your real wikipedia username
2008-04-21 16:10 * Ceiling_Cat addsa tail to him
2008-04-21 16:10 * Working_Cat adds claws.
2008-04-21 16:10 < ShakespeareFan00> because what should happen is that as the minority is enriched they feed back the economic wealth to the majority
2008-04-21 16:11 < ShakespeareFan00> However, human nature is such that this does not always happen
2008-04-21 16:11 < R45> zocky: I dare say most european countries are more free market than command
2008-04-21 16:11 * Shiroi_Neko feeds ShakespeareFan00 to the dogs
2008-04-21 16:11 < Working_Cat> zomg Shiroi_Neko knows Raul's wikiname
2008-04-21 16:11 < Shiroi_Neko> Working_Cat eaul?
2008-04-21 16:11 < ShakespeareFan00> and you get the minoirty in effect becoming an econimic sink, to the detriment of the majority
2008-04-21 16:11 < Shiroi_Neko> he is User:Ceiling Cat
2008-04-21 16:11 < Working_Cat> owl
2008-04-21 16:12 < ShakespeareFan00> I think that is something Marx commented on?
2008-04-21 16:12 < R45> ShakespeareFan00: john stuart mill as well
2008-04-21 16:12 < zocky> R45, that doesn't make them capitalist. capitalist societies mostly died out here around 1900.
2008-04-21 16:12 < Ceiling_Cat> ok, back to proofreading our grant proposal
2008-04-21 16:12 < Shiroi_Neko> Ceiling_Cat grant?
2008-04-21 16:12 < R45> zocky: which country are you in?
2008-04-21 16:13 < zocky> R45, slovenia
2008-04-21 16:13 < zocky> R45, capitalism died out here in 1945
2008-04-21 16:13 < ShakespeareFan00> One of the alternatives (communism) is that the generation of wealth is invested in the majority, and thusly the minority must be controlled to achive this
2008-04-21 16:13 < zocky> the kingdom of yugoslavia did have the ruthless basic capitalism
2008-04-21 16:13 < ShakespeareFan00> *eleminated
2008-04-21 16:13 < R45> zocky: don't know about your economic system so can't comment
2008-04-21 16:13 < zocky> but no european countries have that now
2008-04-21 16:13 < Ceiling_Cat> Shiroi_Neko - my advisor and Tom Sterling are putting in an NSF grant proposal
2008-04-21 16:13 < Ceiling_Cat> (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sterling_%28computing%29 )
2008-04-21 16:13 < ShakespeareFan00> Howver communism doesn't always work either because the majority is larger than the minority
2008-04-21 16:14 < R45> zocky: I don't think any country has a ruthless basic capitalist system
2008-04-21 16:14 < ShakespeareFan00> and thus the overall welath per head is considerably smaller
2008-04-21 16:14 < zocky> R45, half of the world does
2008-04-21 16:14 < R45> zocky: not to my knowledge anyway
2008-04-21 16:14 < zocky> starting with china
2008-04-21 16:14 < zocky> and US is not far behind
2008-04-21 16:14 < R45> zocky: subjective..
2008-04-21 16:14 < zocky> the only thing that separates US from the ruthless capitalism is social security
2008-04-21 16:14 < ShakespeareFan00> China is more capitalist then communist
2008-04-21 16:14 < R45> zocky: that's not quite coming across as reasonable
2008-04-21 16:15 < ShakespeareFan00> as the ecnomic power is concentrated in the hands of elites
2008-04-21 16:15 < zocky> R45, ok, what else?
2008-04-21 16:15 < zocky> ok, you have minimal wages too
2008-04-21 16:15 < ShakespeareFan00> Quite unlike the situation the orignal communist thinkers envisaged
2008-04-21 16:15 < R45> zocky: in a ruthless capitalism system, there are no business laws whatsoever
2008-04-21 16:15 < R45> zocky: no worker's right, no environmental laws
2008-04-21 16:16 < zocky> R45, no, there are no labour laws
2008-04-21 16:16 < zocky> there are business laws
2008-04-21 16:16 < R45> zocky: no antitrust legistration
2008-04-21 16:16 < R45> legislation
2008-04-21 16:16 < zocky> capitalism doesn't work without contract enforcement
2008-04-21 16:16 < R45> zocky: with the government, it isn't perscribed
2008-04-21 16:16 < R45> zocky: in your "ruthless basic" form
2008-04-21 16:17 < zocky> R45, antitrust legislation is neither here nor there. capitalism is inherently too unstable without it to exist for more than a few decades.
2008-04-21 16:17 < ShakespeareFan00> Well projects like Wikipedia and so on slowly undermine the notion of 'capitalist' thinking
2008-04-21 16:17 < R45> zocky: people say the same thing about communism and dictators
2008-04-21 16:17 < zocky> R45, and they're correct
2008-04-21 16:18 < ShakespeareFan00> True communism and socialism are sustainble...
2008-04-21 16:18 < R45> zocky: again subjective ;p
2008-04-21 16:18 < zocky> communism was a failure because it was based on an incorrect theory of human nature
2008-04-21 16:18 < zocky> nothing subjective about that
2008-04-21 16:18 < ShakespeareFan00> Soviet Communism failed because it was too extreme, and made false assumptions..
2008-04-21 16:19 < zocky> the current craze for market economy will fail for the same reason
2008-04-21 16:19 < R45> of course it is subjective, because you're generalising communism on instances where it has failed
2008-04-21 16:19 < R45> and generalising that it will always fail because of xyz
2008-04-21 16:19 < R45> high probability, yes
2008-04-21 16:19 < zocky> R45, "real socialism" has mostly failed
2008-04-21 16:19 < zocky> communism was never attempted
2008-04-21 16:19 < ShakespeareFan00> zocky: Already people are moving away from 'market' driven thinking in some areas
2008-04-21 16:19 < ShakespeareFan00> Like Wikipedia
2008-04-21 16:19 < ShakespeareFan00> ;)
2008-04-21 16:20 < R45> ShakespeareFan00: Communism in the soviet union had too many other problems to work
2008-04-21 16:20 < zocky> some small-scale experiments in communism were tried, but they all failed miserably
2008-04-21 16:20 < ShakespeareFan00> R45: It's debatble if the USSR was actually turly communist
2008-04-21 16:20 < ShakespeareFan00> *turly
2008-04-21 16:20 < ShakespeareFan00> *turly
2008-04-21 16:20 < R45> ShakespeareFan00: I agree!
2008-04-21 16:20 < zocky> most notably kibutzs and the late 19th century free-love communes in US
2008-04-21 16:20 < ShakespeareFan00> Same with China
2008-04-21 16:20 < zocky> china is not communist at all
2008-04-21 16:21 < zocky> it's communist like north korea is democratic
2008-04-21 16:21 < ShakespeareFan00> Essentialy true communism would in fact be the US run on a county level ;)
2008-04-21 16:21 < R45> I can't even think of a true communist state, nor a true capitalist state
2008-04-21 16:21 < zocky> a more-or less true capitalist state is china
2008-04-21 16:21 < zocky> and some other places in the third world
2008-04-21 16:21 < ShakespeareFan00> with a ajoirty decding things at a town meeting ;)
2008-04-21 16:21 < ShakespeareFan00> *majority
2008-04-21 16:21 < R45> clearly my definition of capitalism and yours are very different
2008-04-21 16:22 < zocky> real communism was never attempted at a country level, because even the communists understood it to be utopia all along
2008-04-21 16:22 < zocky> communism would be treating all people as members of your nuclear family
2008-04-21 16:22 < ShakespeareFan00> Which is unrealistic
2008-04-21 16:22 < zocky> "contribute what you can, take what you need"
2008-04-21 16:22 < zocky> it's not going to happen
2008-04-21 16:23 < ShakespeareFan00> Well it also implies that people will only take thier fair share...
2008-04-21 16:23 < zocky> otoh, capitalism is treating all people as potential victims of fraud
2008-04-21 16:23 < ShakespeareFan00> rather than be greedy lustful gluttons...
2008-04-21 16:23 * gurch is a greedy lustful glutton :(
2008-04-21 16:24 < ShakespeareFan00> Human nature is ucha that most people aren't saints ;)
2008-04-21 16:24 < R45> maybe someday they'll discover the gene for greed, make a genetic modification that allows us to all live as hippies and live happily ever after!
2008-04-21 16:24 < ShakespeareFan00> *such
2008-04-21 16:24 < zocky> capitalism is the natural state of affairs between strangers
2008-04-21 16:24 < zocky> as is war, vendetta, etc.
2008-04-21 16:24 < R45> zocky: survival of the fittest