🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <haney.688698086@moonshine>, haney@moonshine.llnl.gov
(Scott W. Haney) writes:

>  It seems that this is black and white issue to you.  Fine.  But can you 
> understand that honest, well-intentioned people might not see things in such 
> stark terms?

No problem with that.  I'm always willing to concede the other side has
good intentions, as in "the road to hell is paved with".

> I don't think "destroying the usefulness of computers for
> the rest of us" is Apple's motive

Didn't mean to say that's what they *think* they are doing, I said that's
what they *are* out to do whether they intend to or not.

> and I haven't decided whether Apple's
> case is either morally or legally without merit. Accordingly, I see
> equating Apple with a terrorist organization as inaccurate and insulting. 

Deliberately insulting.  I'll grant that.

> This sort of emotional coupling evokes images from the Pan Am 103 bombing and 
> the Rome Airport massacre and I think it stands in the way of an honest and 
> civil discussion.

Who's discussing?  Not Apple.  There's nothing to discuss except how best
to put pressure on them.

>  As for your last point regarding the need for citizen action.  I totally
> agree.  Working to modify laws that one views as immoral or incorrect is a 
> good way to effect change in a positive manner (much more so than the request 
> for "embarrassing questions, etc" that started this thread).

Why just action to modify laws?  History shows that trying directly to get
legislation is the worst way to accomplish goals like this.  Let's see, 
first we start a PAC, and then find a way to get umpty ump million dollars
to contribute to politicians.  Do you see any problems with this scenario
so far?  It doesn't work.

On the other hand, if public opinion is changed, the politicians will
eventually follow.  If you want to start an environmental movement, write
"Silent Spring", don't bother with the politicians at first.

>> [Me] By the way I don't see anything wrong with the notion that using the
>> threat of a lawsuit can be "terroristic."  There are other ways to kill
>> businesses and jobs besides using guns.
>
>  I agree in principle. These SLAPP suits we've heard about would seem to
> fall into this category: they are generally gratuitous and are designed to
> impinge on people's first amendment rights by threatening finanical ruin.
> However, Apple is pursuing a case against a decidedly "armed" opponent 
> regarding a legal point that isn't black-and-white to everyone.  I think 
> seeking a ruling in such a situation is not "terroristic".  You apparently 
> disagree.  Fine.

I don't disagree that Microsoft has lawyers too.  I just doubt that the
results of Apple's and Microsoft's lawyers going at it for 15 rounds will
do us any good.  Microsoft isn't defending the public interest here.  They're
just defending themselves (which is sane).  The only way that the public
interest will be served is if the whole nonsense is ended.

I will concede that "terrorist" is perhaps not the best slogan to use to
attack Apple.  Just thought I try it out to see how it sounded.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu