<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.resonant.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Resonant Information - Page - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.resonant.org</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Page&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Raw-imported, noise-filtered version of black shot</title>
 <link>http://www.resonant.org/node/471#comment-67</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;I&#039;ve updated this to show a version of the &quot;total darkness&quot; shot that used a raw import and Noise Ninja to perform a spectacular recovery.  Getting the shot right the first time is still better, of course.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:11:37 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Zed</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 67 at http://www.resonant.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Hammer analogy</title>
 <link>http://www.resonant.org/node/325#comment-4</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The point was more that society places various accepted restrictions on freedoms on usage (by virtue of &lt;em&gt;making&lt;/em&gt; certain actions crimes), and less that the restrictions on the use of hammers work exactly the same way as the restrictions on proprietary software.  It&#039;s certainly fair to argue about whether one restriction or another is a good idea, but I am rebutting the idea that it is unacceptable to have to give up any freedom whatsoever in order to use a tool of any kind.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are, in fact, tools with modification restrictions, however.  Cars come immediately to mind: if I buy a car, there are limitations on how far I can modify it and still drive it on a public street.  This is actually a fairly good analogy to proprietary software, since such software doesn&#039;t generally prevent you from modifying it locally (there are unofficial patches for many software packages), but only from redistributing it or (in the case of client/server style software) connecting to certain servers after it has been modified.
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:03:01 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Zed</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 4 at http://www.resonant.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Hammers</title>
 <link>http://www.resonant.org/node/325#comment-3</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&quot;If I am given a hammer, I don&#039;t have the freedom to use it to remove the nails in my neighbor&#039;s house, nor may I use it to violently strip off my own clothes in the middle of a busy elementary school, whether or not I&#039;m careful not to hurt anyone while I do so. As a society, we don&#039;t want people to have that kind of freedom. So if it&#039;s given that some freedoms should be restricted by society, why then is non-free software a social problem?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A better anology would be a sledge hammer. Lets say you buy a sledge hammer along with some fence posts and put up a fence. A week later you are putting up a different fence and the sledge you have is unweildy due to the design of its handle. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the proprietary model, you are prevented from using your skills as  carpenter to modify the sledge in anyway. So, what other tool works the same way as proprietary software? I can&#039;t think of any. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, which hammer actively prevents you from comitting certain acts? I&#039;m thinking of lawful acts here, but while we&#039;re at it, which tools stop you from commiting crimes?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The rest of your article is quite agreeabale.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:09:58 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 3 at http://www.resonant.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Nasser, Israel, and the Six Day War</title>
 <link>http://www.resonant.org/20040618-israel_and_palestine#comment-1</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;I found some interesting quotes written to the Globe and Mail (&lt;a href=&quot;http://izayid.tripod.com/TheGlobeAndMailDec11_01.htm&quot; class=&quot;bb-url&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://izayid.tripod.com/TheGlobeAndMailDec11_01.htm&quot;&gt;http://izayid.tripod.com/TheGlobeAndMailDec11_01.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;), implying that Israel, and not Egypt or Israel was the aggressor in the Six Day War.  This is somewhat contrary to the way it is usually explained, so I&#039;m logging the quotes here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;bb-quote&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;Quoting Yitzhak Rabin:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote class=&quot;bb-quote-body&quot;&gt;&quot;I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.&quot; [Le Monde, Feb. 28, 1968].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;bb-quote&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;Quoting Prime Minister Levi Eshkol:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote class=&quot;bb-quote-body&quot;&gt;&quot;The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military build up there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up.&quot; [reported in the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot, Oct. 18, 1967].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;div class=&quot;bb-quote&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;Quoting Menachim Begin, while prime minister, addressing Israel&#039;s National Defence College on Aug. 8, 1982:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote class=&quot;bb-quote-body&quot;&gt;&quot;In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.&quot; [The New York Times, Aug. 21, 1982.]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:32:10 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Zed</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 1 at http://www.resonant.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
