Re: Design principles and ethics (was Re: Execute without read (was [...]))

[Pierre THIERRY]

Scribit Bas Wijnen dies 29/04/2006 hora 14:22:
> > Wrong is not morally reprehensible, which in turn is not morally
> > objectionable.
> That's a matter of definition.  I just gave you mine, and for that
> your statement is obviously not true.

You can see slightly different meanings to some words than me, but that
doesn't make something morally objectionable something morally
reprehensible. Everyone cannot have it's own version of the
dictionary...

It is a problem of protocol. If two systems want to communicate, they
have to agree on a protocol for that. Language is just a protocol
between humans.

> The law is an attempt to write down morals.

That's delusional, at best. Laws have to do with protecting freedoms. To
do that, most laws have to limit other freedoms, because many freedoms
are just incompatible (like the freedom to kill and the freedom to live,
for example).

I quote a law manual of mine (loosely translated from French):

  ``Primary function of law rule is to organise the society by a tissue
  of juridical relationships wich possibly can superpose themselves with
  other social relationships, moral or religion for example.''

> > That should be made clear (and quite a few among us could confirm
> > that it is the way they see design principles). And then design
> > principles should be written.
> Yes, they should.  And they are. :-)  Marcus wrote an e-mail to this
> list some time ago describing them.

We should really stop thinking that a lost email in a mailing-list
archive can be substituted to documentation. Hopefully the use of the
Wiki could help us there.

Documentally,
Nowhere man
-- 
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature