From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tim McNamara Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: GNU.org is down Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:29:49 -0600 Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87oeuht8d8.fsf@thalassa.informatimago.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1071553714 29200 80.91.224.253 (16 Dec 2003 05:48:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:48:34 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 16 06:48:30 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AW84M-0002ZN-00 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:48:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AW8xT-0007EU-M6 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:45:27 -0500 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!gemini.bitstream.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (darwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:0hj631lIUz3OVhpIVYu85IO2EnY= Original-Lines: 91 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 005406b9.news.bitstream.net Original-X-Trace: 1071552589 gemini.bitstream.net 1095 216.243.177.155 Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@bitstream.net Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:119359 Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:15299 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:15299 David Steuber writes: > Bob Nelson writes: > >> David Steuber wrote: >> > David Kastrup writes: >> >> >> What kind of people gleefully cause a considerable permanent >> >> damage to a charity instead of elsewhere "just" for the hope of >> >> monetary gains? I hope that they are found and dealt with in >> >> proportion to their crime and the impact it will have. >> >> > The kind of people who deserve a disproportionately harsh >> > punishment. >> >> That type of attitude does not imply one of tolerance and >> understanding. It conveys an absolutist view of ``good'' and >> ``evil'' and ``right'' and ``wrong''. > > OK, so I'm intolerant. Suppose instead of breaking into a server > and doing who knows how much damage that people then have to spend > valuable time fixing, the miscreant instead took a sledgehammer to > the windshield of your car. Would you not want at least > compensation for the damages and time to repair them? Herein lies a rub. Your windshield is not available for free, given away and freely modifiable by others. It's therefore easy to assign a value for compensation in the case of material damage. In the case of damage to FSF sources and such, since it is given away freely to anyone who wants it, there is difficulty in assigning a value for compensatory or punitive purposes. >> Rather than seek ``harsh punishment'' for those involved, it's more >> constructive to become aware of the motivation that led to the >> deed. Perhaps GNU needs to better covey its ideals. > > I'm not sure I see this as constructive. Suppose, hypothetically, > that the GNU and Debian servers were broken into by people > politically opposed to the GPL and Free software. Understanding > their motives will not prevent them from doing so again. Understanding their motives could have some value and benefit none the less. However, simply becoming aware of the motives of criminals does not in and of itself reduce the risk of recidivism- the usual claims of the liberals notwithstanding. While I'm a liberal to be sure, such twaddle is one of the worst failings of many liberal philosophies. On the other hand, the "hang 'em high" mentality of many social conservatives has also proven to be a failure- punishment does little or nothing to correct behavior (this has been demonstrated in behavioral research time and time again). > For certain types of people retribution is the better course of > action. Not everyone out there will listen to reason and admit that > what they did was not acceptable social behavior and undertake never > to do that sort of thing again. > > Some people only understand force. So, what- you're going to cut off the fingers of the miscreants so that they can't type and therefore can't do it again? It's a truism that if you kill someone they will never commit a crime again. How do you determine which types of people are the right ones for retribution as the appropriate response? Or is it only the people who have fucked up something *you* value who should be so punished? > Also, it is possible that there are absolutes like 'good', 'evil', > 'right', and 'wrong'. Laws are often based on those concepts. If > the general case of destruction of another person's property is not > wrong, then what is? Concepts cannot be absolutes. Values are always relative to the society in which those values are expressed. Anything we build is at risk for someone destroying it- even if that destruction is purported to be well-meaning. The Christians destroyed hundreds of cultures and religions, killed hundreds of thousands of people, brought disease and suffering to millions in the name of saving them. Muslims have done the same. Other religions and cultures ditto, although not on the massive scale of these two. And yet most Christians and Mulsims still think that their destruction of indigenous faiths and cultures was beneficial. Now, this was certainly not well-meant. It was destruction, senseless vandalism done simply because they could. It made them feel powerful, I suppose, for a little while. IMHO that's to be pitied, while taking security steps to close up the holes they exploited. If they can be identified, they should be prosecuted under whatever applicable laws are available. But acting out retributively just because you're angry won't help- as was said by someone smarter than me, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."