@natasha #134569 逆向歧视是存在的，中国有美国也有

另外，说占尽一切便宜太情绪化了 你还没有论据

参考汉族沙文主义

比较明显的有计划生育和高考加分

有二分之一甚至四分之一少数民族血缘的人，会把自己的民族成分报成少数民族而非汉族（升学、提干、生育等各方面的优惠）

@libgen #134424

改成你是否支持专有软件？因为绝大多数人都支持，就没有必要选了

而且我的主要目的是测试本站用户对于源码的态度

另外你可以自己开一个投票

我参考了这个禅与网络投票选项设计

@libgen #134416 我的表达有歧义吗？有好的修改建议吗？

（通过限制他人的自由来挣钱）它指的是专有软件

RMS:我们相信这里有一个更重要的问题：所有的程序员都[负有]尊重他人自由的道德义务。获利本身并无错误，但是它并不能为虐待他人做辩护。

@爱狗却养猫 #134401 推荐你看一下

理查德·斯托曼一直是对的

对于普通用户而言易用和便捷大于对隐私的追求，从而更容易支持一些公司如苹果

但实际上他们不一定有正确的认识

甚至只从经济角度看待代码

电脑和网络技术，在现代社会中占据了至关重要的位置。控制了它们，就可以监视人们的一举一动、一言一行，等同于控制言论、思想、真理和权力。

专有软件剥夺用户的自由，最终将导致灾难性的后果 如《爱国者法案》、国家防火墙、实名制、SOPA这样的事情

自由软件与商业无关，它只关系到人类的自由。GPL许可证从来不反对用软件挣钱，它只反对你通过限制他人的自由来挣钱。在理查德·斯托曼看来，专有软件剥夺用户的自由，最终将导致灾难性的后果，高度依赖计算机的社会尤其如此

不自由的软体是非常不道德的事（通过限制他人的自由来挣钱）

http://www.osnews.com/story/25469/Richard_Stallman_Was_Right_All_Along

Late last year, president Obama signed a law that makes it possible to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects without any form of trial or due process. Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities. Initiatives like SOPA promote diligent monitoring of communication channels. Thirty years ago, when Richard Stallman launched the GNU project, and during the three decades that followed, his sometimes extreme views and peculiar antics were ridiculed and disregarded as paranoia – but here we are, 2012, and his once paranoid what-ifs have become reality.

Up until relatively recently, it’s been easy to dismiss Richard Stallman as a paranoid fanatic, someone who lost touch with reality long ago. A sort of perpetual computer hippie, the perfect personification of the archetype of the unworldly basement-dwelling computer nerd. His beard, his hair, his outfits – in our visual world, it’s simply too easy to dismiss him.

His views have always been extreme. His only computer is a Lemote Yeelong netbook, because it’s the only computer which uses only Free software – no firmware blobs, no proprietary BIOS; it’s all Free. He also refuses to own a mobile phone, because they’re too easy to track; until there’s a mobile phone equivalent of the Yeelong, Stallman doesn’t want one. Generally, all software should be Free. Or, as the Free Software Foundation puts it:

As our society grows more dependent on computers, the software we run is of critical importance to securing the future of a free society. Free software is about having control over the technology we use in our homes, schools and businesses, where computers work for our individual and communal benefit, not for proprietary software companies or governments who might seek to restrict and monitor us.

I, too, disregarded Stallman as way too extreme. Free software to combat controlling and spying governments? Evil corporations out to take over the world? Software as a tool to monitor private communication channels? Right. Surely, Free and open source software is important, and I choose it whenever functional equivalence with proprietary solutions is reached, but that Stallman/FSF nonsense is way out there.

But here we are, at the start of 2012. Obama signed the NDAA for 2012, making it possible for American citizens to be detained indefinitely without any form of trial or due process, only because they are terrorist suspects. At the same time, we have SOPA, which, if passed, would enact a system in which websites can be taken off the web, again without any form of trial or due process, while also enabling the monitoring of internet traffic. Combine this with how the authorities labelled the Occupy movements – namely, as terrorists – and you can see where this is going.

In case all this reminds you of China and similarly totalitarian regimes, you’re not alone. Even the Motion Picture Association of America, the MPAA, proudly proclaims that what works for China, Syria, Iran, and others, should work for the US. China’s Great Firewall and similar filtering systems are glorified as workable solutions in what is supposed to be the free world.

The crux of the matter here is that unlike the days of yore, where repressive regimes needed elaborate networks of secret police and informants to monitor communication, all they need now is control over the software and hardware we use. Our desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and all manner of devices play a role in virtually all of our communication. Think you’re in the clear when communicating face-to-face? Think again. How did you arrange the meet-up? Over the phone? The web? And what do you have in your pocket or bag, always connected to the network?

This is what Stallman has been warning us about all these years – and most of us, including myself, never really took him seriously. However, as the world changes, the importance of the ability to check what the code in your devices is doing – by someone else in case you lack the skills – becomes increasingly apparent. If we lose the ability to check what our own computers are doing, we’re boned.

That’s the very core of the Free Software Foundation’s and Stallman’s beliefs: that proprietary software takes control away from the user, which can lead to disastrous consequences, especially now that we rely on computers for virtually everything we do. The fact that Stallman foresaw this almost three decades ago is remarkable, and vindicates his activism. It justifies 30 years of Free Software Foundation.

And, in 2012, we’re probably going to need Free and open source software more than ever before. At the Chaos Computer Congress in Berlin late last year, Cory Doctorow held a presentation titled “The Coming War on General Purpose Computation“. In it, Doctorow warns that the general purpose computer, and more specifically, user control over general purpose computers, is perceived as a threat to the establishment. The copyright wars? Nothing but a prelude to the real war.

“As a member of the Walkman generation, I have made peace with the fact that I will require a hearing aid long before I die, and of course, it won’t be a hearing aid, it will be a computer I put in my body,” Doctorow explains, “So when I get into a car – a computer I put my body into – with my hearing aid – a computer I put inside my body – I want to know that these technologies are not designed to keep secrets from me, and to prevent me from terminating processes on them that work against my interests.”

And this is really the gist of it all. With computers taking care of things like hearing, driving, and more, we really can’t afford to be locked out of them. We need to be able to peek inside of them and see what they’re doing, to ensure we’re not being monitored, filtered, or whatever. Only a short while ago I would’ve declared this as pure paranoia – but with all that’s been going on recently, it’s no longer paranoia. It’s reality.

“Freedom in the future will require us to have the capacity to monitor our devices and set meaningful policy on them, to examine and terminate the processes that run on them, to maintain them as honest servants to our will, and not as traitors and spies working for criminals, thugs, and control freaks,” Doctorow warns, “And we haven’t lost yet, but we have to win the copyright wars to keep the Internet and the PC free and open. Because these are the materiel in the wars that are to come, we won’t be able to fight on without them.”

This is why you should support Android (not Google, but Android), even if you prefer the iPhone. This is why you should support Linux, even if you use Windows. This is why you should support Apache, even if you run IIS. There’s going to be a point where being Free/open is no longer a fun perk, but a necessity.

And that point is approaching fast.

@爱狗却养猫 #134361 我之所以不这么做主要原因有两点

1. 我对RSM的了解并不多，只是最近看过几篇文章，容易以偏概全
2. 我以前很少在论坛发帖，投票还太不会使用

因此，要是有对RMS了解比较多的人开投票效果应该比我强

要是没有的话 我就尽快开一个

@消极 #134332 站长本人意愿是比较明显的，RMS肯定不会被封

我想知道的是他的言论

• 更加道德的社会
• 自由软件是一种政治哲学
• 在生活中有商业的容身之所，但是不应当允许商业来统治人们的生活

在2047会有多少支持者，反对的人会用什么理由

最具争议是这两句话吗

We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. 翻译：我们可以想象很多情况中，但最可信的情况是她（指Giuiuffre)是完全自愿的。

I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17. 翻译：我认为以某种微小细节来界定"强奸"在道德上是荒谬的，这些细节类似于根据所在国家或受害者是18岁还是17岁来判定。

其实我很好奇RMS在2047会得到怎样的待遇

https://www.solidot.org/story?sid=67352

RMS（Richard M. Stallman）的回归引发自由软件社区的分裂，支持者和反对者都在 GitHub 上发表了公开信。到目前为止，支持者的签名人数达到了 4302，由个人组成，很多人使用了网名，而不是真实姓名。要求解除 RMS 的公开信目前由 50 个组织和 2872 个人签名，看起来少于支持者，但绝大部分都使用了真实姓名，而 50 个组织中不乏重要的开源项目，其中包括：GNOME 基金会、FreeDOS 项目、Mozilla、SUSE、Tor 项目、X.org 基金会，而可能是最著名的开源公司 Red Hat 宣布停止资助自由软件基金会。