Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Debian GNU/Hurd 2013 Release Brings New Packages

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArneBab View Post
    With the same reasoning you could say that GNU should change the name and call itself “Linux userland” because GNU is unpronouncable to US americans.
    Perhaps, you misunderstood my post. I claimed that "Hurd" is a bad name and its better to change it to, perhaps "GNU kernel". For example, there is "GNU userland". I don't get where you got that "Linux userland" from. If Linux project spaws own userland, then fine for *them*.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArneBab View Post
    But you fall into a big trap with that: Would you discuss here, if it were about the new GNU kernel which uses the old GNU Mach and the Hurd design, but changed the name? Never change an established brand.
    Brand of "Hurd"? Established "Hurd"?..
    Ow, I have a saying for you too - "The boat sails exactly how you name it".

    The danger of "established brands" (Hurd is not "brand" and is not "established") can appear only if a brand is unsuccessful. For example, in times of Borland, when they renamed company to InPrise - they thought about much better image by better name, but consumers got effect that Borland was so unsuccessful, it was sold to "InPrise".

    Now, that is not going to affect us, because "Hurd" is not good name (feel free to start a poll, even here); and because we have "GNU xxx" prefix, which will always prevent Borland/Inprise-reaction.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArneBab View Post
    And if you look at this from a pure PR perspective: Would you give up the name which made it into xkcd as a definition of how to do it right (but too slow)? That’s a kind of spread which is really, really hard to get otherwise. And you can dispell the bad connotations by simply getting it working while getting the good connotations for a new project is really hard: http://xkcd.com/844/
    xkcd is a JOKE website. Think about it.
    .. unless most xkcd users are composed of "Hurd" developers, nobody will be hurt. And xkcd (&world) will follow, exactly in a way serious things are done; not vice versa.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArneBab View Post
    There are a multitude of jokes about how the Hurd hurts and people heard about the hurd and decided it was only for nerds. But the herd keeps moving forward in its own pace, and the herd of gnus is actually a really strong image which I expect to catch hold when the Hurd is ready for general usage.
    Quitting "nerd" image and joining "professional, responsible, free" image will also not hurt. No, I am not talking about clothes comfort here, even Steve had his jeans. Helps shifting "nerd" into "hacker"/"genius". Look at RH as another example.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArneBab View Post
    - 10 years ago the Hurd crashed under a bit of load, so Gentoo GNU/Hurd was impossible: You could not compile the packages. Most compilation of bigger packages was done by crosscompiling on GNU/Linux.
    - 5 years ago the Hurd hosted its own wiki, but the wiki was slow and we mostly worked on it by directly editing the data in the VCS backend.
    - Nowadays the Hurd packages are compiled on Hurd VMs, and the Hurd is stable enough for setting up continuous testing. And the wiki is really fast.
    Lets wait another 15 years till it pairs with current Linux or comparable? Why not starting thinking critically why the lag and what can be changed? ...unless you are ok with the pace...

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArneBab View Post
    Work no way slower than its acceptable by external pulse, but always welcome rewrite from scratch - the natural way to get rid of architectural bugs.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peppercats View Post
    off-topic, but
    Minors don't have the mental capacity to consent, that's why they're minors.
    Consent means approving or not approving something. So you think that everyone below the age of 19, 21 or whatever are mentally incapable of deciding whether they are ok for something to be done? You must be those sort of people who spoon feeds your children even when they are 18 years old. Seriously, laws against paedophiles are so stupid and intolerant. Everything about it is just like the sickening discrimination against homosexuals and non-whites. Also the so called "age of consent". Apparently, stupid law makers believe that there is some magically stage in a human's life in which they undergo some mythical transformation in which they suddenly have the ability to make decisions and are somehow not "vulnerable" anymore. And apparently, this magical stage occurs at different ages in different places.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    Sorry, aren't you the Solaris fan? So, people like kraftman, BSD-xxx, slowlaris were actually right attacking you? Well, thanks for saying all above, that proves who you are.
    If people ban child porn, why don't they ban adult porn as well as I see no difference between the two. This shows that lots of people have very narrow minded believes that results in the discrimination we are seeing. I very glad and many in sun microsystems do not have this sort of narrow mindedness and have thus offered help and support for the servers belonging to these discriminated minorities. The Linux foundation or Red Hat never do this sort of thing even though they claim to be for "freedom" and saving people from Microsoft.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kerbabbert View Post
    If people ban child porn, why don't they ban adult porn as well as I see no difference between the two. This shows that lots of people have very narrow minded believes that results in the discrimination we are seeing.
    We don't allow child porn because children do not have the mental capacity to be able to consent to sexual acts. A child cannot have an equal relationship with an adult, because the adult is both mentally more developed, and is also in a position of power towards the child in several ways - legally, physically and mentally. While it is true that we cannot pinpoint a fixed age where a child becomes adult and capable of truly giving consent to sexual acts, we have to draw the line somewhere, because to do otherwise would place children in very disadvantaged position, where they would have no protection against abusive adults.

    Now, of course the situation isn't black and white, and like any complicated issue, there's plenty of gray areas. The age of consent differs from country to country, and of course someone who is 18 or 20 should not be prosecuted for having sex with someone who is 15 or 16. One could even argue that we should allow any drawn or computer-rendered child pornography, which contains no images of any actual children, and thus doesn't harm any real, living person - just like we allow violent pornography that depicts "fake" rape scenarios, even though rape itself is illegal (as it of course should).

    However: when you start arguing that we should just allow anyone to have sex with children "as long as the child consents" you're crossing a line into creepy territory. Yes, the current legislation and political atmosphere is not perfect, and the moral panic about child pornography is abused in order to lobby for increasing censorship. That still doesn't mean we should just abolish all protection of children. Children need to be allowed to explore and grow up in a safe environment, and growing up includes getting familiar with your sexuality, but it is far too easy for a full-grown adult to coerce or manipulate a child to "consent" to sexual activities. There's plenty of data that shows that those who are sexually abused or harassed as children are more likely to become future child abusers themselves. Children must be allowed to get acquainted with their sexuality in a safe way, and this does not include having sex with fully grown adults.

    If you cannot have meaningful sexual relationships with people of your own age, and you think that you can only feel sexual attraction towards children, then you have some very serious issues and you should seek psychiatric treatment before you harm yourself or someone else.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    We don't allow child porn because children do not have the mental capacity to be able to consent to sexual acts. A child cannot have an equal relationship with an adult, because the adult is both mentally more developed, and is also in a position of power towards the child in several ways - legally, physically and mentally. While it is true that we cannot pinpoint a fixed age where a child becomes adult and capable of truly giving consent to sexual acts, we have to draw the line somewhere, because to do otherwise would place children in very disadvantaged position, where they would have no protection against abusive adults.
    Click the link on the Stallman post and you’ll see that he simply summarized a news article which cites scientific findings:

    - http://stallman.org/archives/2012-no...8Pedophilia%29
    - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-desires-light

    It is a comment on a news article which said exactly what RMS says in his note.
    Last edited by ArneBab; 05-27-2013 at 05:09 PM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    We don't allow child porn because children do not have the mental capacity to be able to consent to sexual acts. A child cannot have an equal relationship with an adult, because the adult is both mentally more developed, and is also in a position of power towards the child in several ways - legally, physically and mentally. While it is true that we cannot pinpoint a fixed age where a child becomes adult and capable of truly giving consent to sexual acts, we have to draw the line somewhere, because to do otherwise would place children in very disadvantaged position, where they would have no protection against abusive adults.

    Now, of course the situation isn't black and white, and like any complicated issue, there's plenty of gray areas. The age of consent differs from country to country, and of course someone who is 18 or 20 should not be prosecuted for having sex with someone who is 15 or 16. One could even argue that we should allow any drawn or computer-rendered child pornography, which contains no images of any actual children, and thus doesn't harm any real, living person - just like we allow violent pornography that depicts "fake" rape scenarios, even though rape itself is illegal (as it of course should).

    However: when you start arguing that we should just allow anyone to have sex with children "as long as the child consents" you're crossing a line into creepy territory. Yes, the current legislation and political atmosphere is not perfect, and the moral panic about child pornography is abused in order to lobby for increasing censorship. That still doesn't mean we should just abolish all protection of children. Children need to be allowed to explore and grow up in a safe environment, and growing up includes getting familiar with your sexuality, but it is far too easy for a full-grown adult to coerce or manipulate a child to "consent" to sexual activities. There's plenty of data that shows that those who are sexually abused or harassed as children are more likely to become future child abusers themselves. Children must be allowed to get acquainted with their sexuality in a safe way, and this does not include having sex with fully grown adults.

    If you cannot have meaningful sexual relationships with people of your own age, and you think that you can only feel sexual attraction towards children, then you have some very serious issues and you should seek psychiatric treatment before you harm yourself or someone else.
    I'm pretty sure that he's trolling, not that it detracts from your thorough response though.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    We don't allow child porn because children do not have the mental capacity to be able to consent to sexual acts. A child cannot have an equal relationship with an adult, because the adult is both mentally more developed, and is also in a position of power towards the child in several ways - legally, physically and mentally. While it is true that we cannot pinpoint a fixed age where a child becomes adult and capable of truly giving consent to sexual acts, we have to draw the line somewhere, because to do otherwise would place children in very disadvantaged position, where they would have no protection against abusive adults.

    Now, of course the situation isn't black and white, and like any complicated issue, there's plenty of gray areas. The age of consent differs from country to country, and of course someone who is 18 or 20 should not be prosecuted for having sex with someone who is 15 or 16. One could even argue that we should allow any drawn or computer-rendered child pornography, which contains no images of any actual children, and thus doesn't harm any real, living person - just like we allow violent pornography that depicts "fake" rape scenarios, even though rape itself is illegal (as it of course should).

    However: when you start arguing that we should just allow anyone to have sex with children "as long as the child consents" you're crossing a line into creepy territory. Yes, the current legislation and political atmosphere is not perfect, and the moral panic about child pornography is abused in order to lobby for increasing censorship. That still doesn't mean we should just abolish all protection of children. Children need to be allowed to explore and grow up in a safe environment, and growing up includes getting familiar with your sexuality, but it is far too easy for a full-grown adult to coerce or manipulate a child to "consent" to sexual activities. There's plenty of data that shows that those who are sexually abused or harassed as children are more likely to become future child abusers themselves. Children must be allowed to get acquainted with their sexuality in a safe way, and this does not include having sex with fully grown adults.

    If you cannot have meaningful sexual relationships with people of your own age, and you think that you can only feel sexual attraction towards children, then you have some very serious issues and you should seek psychiatric treatment before you harm yourself or someone else.
    Thanks for your reasonable and sane answer; faith in humanity restored...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •