Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
I think we'd like to think that purely 'we' makes the choises.
But you have to consider that we are not singular entities, each of us are made up of several parts that cooperate to make the choise. Our emotions tells us one thing, and our logic the other. Do we decide what emotions to have at a particular time? Maybe it is possible through technology, but currently i do not consciously decide what emotions to have.
So i don't know whether it is correct to say that we have freedom, as in the moment we were born(of which we did not choose to do), we were 'given the combined functionalities of our parents(of which we did not pick).
I am a member!
Using proprietary software violates MY code of ethics, which is why I use free software. That fact that it works very well, is free of malware, etc. is really beside the point.
>Using proprietary software violates MY code of ethics
By the way, are you a believer or an atheist?
I am a member!
The existence of god/gods doesn't pass the laugh test. Religion is an activity for the weak-minded and the single biggest obstacle to human progress, followed closely by nationalism. My ethics are based on my ability to think for myself.
Are your ethics based on pure logical reasoning?
I am a member!
No. They are based on an ~50 year lifetime of experience, my observations of others, my own sense of logic and (at least to some extent) the law. Of course, laws and the experiences of others may be based in part on input from religion, but I have not had any direct input from religion as I was thankfully shielded from this farce during childhood. I'm not an 'athiest', but rather a 'none.' True athiests don't think about or consider religion. As a none, I would like to see religion removed from the human condition entirely.
And how can you explain your position about Free Software Movement?
I am a member!
The four freedoms are entirely consistent with my code of ethics. Pretty straightforward.
Sorry for waiting, I didn't have the Internet these days.
Is it because you think ...
1."You cann't trust anyone"?
2. "Giving is better than receiving"?
3. "Freedom is the highest value"?
4. "FLOSS fits my selfish interests"?
5. "Progress is important. And FLOSS is more progressive than proprietary software"?
6. "Free software is right, proprietary software is wrong: I deserve to control my own computing".
Freedom does not have to be "the highest value" for a user to only accept free software.
>Freedom does not have to be "the highest value" for a user to only accept free software.
Are you sure? Because if freedom isn't the highest value, then user can start to use proprietary software because of more important things.
Example: Joe has the highest value and it is his nerves. He hates Abrowser, because new versions of Abrowser so slooow. Thus, he started to use semi-proprietary Chromium instead.
Humans need to be medically and socially healthy in order to live.
Some scientists performed an experiment in Nazi Germany to discover whether people need love to live. The babies which recieved only food, water, shelter, and sanitation died. The babies which recieved food, water, shelter, sanitation, and love lived.
A Japanese man worked as a quality control inspector. He hardly ever saw his family. One day, there was a quality issue at the plant he worked at. The man was medically completely healthy. He was in the middle of a phone conversation with his boss when he suddenly collapsed. He lost the will to live. His heart quit beating. He died.
If this world is everything, and by "world" I mean "universe", then love should not be necessary to live. Plain and simple truth is, love is necessary to live. How is that posible without there being more to existence? There must be other worlds with angels and devils...and a God!
What's love but a second hand emotion
--Tina Turner
I've also heard the anecdote about the babies and I do believe it. What I don't understand is why do you think angels and devils are required to explain it.
I am not sure why I spend my time arguing like that.
Truth is, this world would be a much better place if people really followed Christianity. It is supposedly the most popular religion, but is that possible with all of the immorality we see?
The Bible spends no time trying to convince people that God exists, because at the time the Bible was written, God's presence was obvious to everyone. His presence is still just as obvious, we just live in a world where the media controls what people think about and how they think about it.
They say you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. The solution is, if you work the horse hard enough on the way there, it will drink. Someone can tell you the truth, but how can you believe it? All you need is a heavy dose of reality.
I do not have enough life experience yet to explain all of my ideas. However, I believe there is truth in them.
The biggest obstacle to human progress is credit. If nobody cared who recieved credit for progress, people would be more willing to help, and thus thrive!
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios