Richard Stallman Collapses At Barcelona Conference

http://www.publico.es/ciencias/432664/richard-stallman-rajoy-nos-quiere-matar-a-todos

by nutmeg • 14 years ago

275 230 14 years ago

Shit. I hope he's okay, it's difficult to tell what happened through the lens of Google Translate. Anyone have more information?

kzar• 14 years ago

Apparently he's OK http://www.fsf.org/news/richard-stallman-speech-in-barcelona...

drewmclellan• 14 years ago

Glad he's okay.

Let's hope the hospital doesn't offer him breakfast.

rbanffy7• 14 years ago

If the server feels unhappy with the extra https traffic, the http://www.fsf.org/news/richard-stallman-speech-in-barcelona... link works OK.

andos• 14 years ago

My Spanish is rusty, but the article says that:

- Stallman felt ill halfway through a lecture he was offering in Barcelona, probably due to a blood pressure spike;

- he asked the staff for medical assistance;

- meanwhile, he continued the lecture with some difficulty, but in a good mood;

- the lecture was suspended when the ambulance arrived, and was eventually cancelled;

- after being attended by the medical staff, he was well enough to walk out of the building;

- no further details on his health.

Nrsolis• 14 years ago

Of course, the big question is whether the firmware in the EKG machine was open or not.

narag2• 14 years ago

Your Spanish is not so rusty after all :-)

hluska• 14 years ago

My Spanish is equally rusty, but this (English language) article seems to have conveyed the main points:

http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/276638/fsf-pres...

skeletonjelly• 14 years ago

What's ambiguous about him falling ill due to a "power surge"?

firichapo• 14 years ago

I just wanted to add that at no point does the article mentions that he collapsed. Looks like he suffered an increase in blood pressure and decided to call it of. A doctor was contacted and he was able to walk away by his own means.

andrewcooke• 14 years ago

that's how i read it too, but there's a photo of him on a stretcher being carried to an ambulance. i think maybe the article is wrong?

squidbot• 14 years ago

Google's translation made the article a bit more amusing: "The president of the Free Software Foundation has begun to feel ill, apparently due to a power surge"

He needs better line filtering I'd guess!

jsavimbi3• 14 years ago

> Richard Stallman: "Rajoy nos quiere matar a todos"

RMS: "Rajoy (Spain's president) wants to kill us all."

Well there you go, Richard.

dholowiski• 14 years ago

That's pretty much classic RMS.

jsavimbi3• 14 years ago

Well, at least he just has some blood pressure that needs tending to.

Even though I mostly disagree with the man's politics, I must say that it takes a smart prick to make a contextually accurate and funny joke in a foreign language at an indecisive moment like that.

brlewis• 14 years ago

For context, see the commment from me_myselft http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3955287

adrianb• 14 years ago

President? I think you mean prime minister.

hk_kh• 14 years ago

For those not getting in which context could be a confusion between the words president and prime minister, here's a wikipedia entry[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Spain#Officia...

jsavimbi3• 14 years ago

No, I did not mean prime minister.

In Spain, the head of state is the monarch and the head of the elected government is known as the "Presidente del Gobierno", or president of the government. Although a counterpart can be found in other parliamentarian systems such as the prime minister in the UK, the Spanish president of government is not primus inter pares but the undisputed head of the government.

me_myselft3• 14 years ago

Hi, I am from Barcelona, and I was there. Stallman is a great man. I dont know what happened at the end, but when we were in the talk the organizers told us that the talk is suspended because Stallman was not well. The medical service arrive 20 minutes after Stallman ask for attention. This delay was used by him to say: "Son los recortes, Rajoy nos quiere matar a todos", meaning: The delay is because of the cuts in the spanish health systems, Rajoy (the president) want to kill us". :-).

planetguy• 14 years ago

Wow, if only he were in the United States where you don't have to rely on the Government for medical care...

Tloewald• 14 years ago

...can't rely on the government for healthcare...

me_myselft3• 14 years ago

Yes, but in US you have to have a lot of money for receiving a very basic and fundamental human right: medical care...

ews• 14 years ago

I came here expecting a troll :) in Europe you don't have to rely on Government for health care: you have an array of options in the private sector, which are usually much better (in my experience) than the US private hospitals since they have to compete with a free and good-enough option.

Most of the population prefer to use the free, government subsidized health system though.

te_chris• 14 years ago

I'm nervous about moving to the states because of just that. Here in New Zealand it's easy because we're all guaranteed access to a great public health system, no matter what. You can buy private insurance and expedite certain things if you want, but the public system is always there and available to everyone. Moving to the US and having to deal with health insurance makes me nervous.

dasil003• 14 years ago

Or better yet, where if you don't have a job with a group plan you just might find it impossible to get insurance at any cost, and if you pay the medical system directly you'll pay 3 times what the insurance companies pay, and 10 times what you would pay in the second most expensive country in the world.

alwillis2• 14 years ago

I live in Boston, Massachusetts, where we have universal health care and some of the best doctors and hospitals in the world. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

elemeno2• 14 years ago

As much as I appreciate all that Stallman's done over the years (though I don't always agree with him), that just strikes me as a remarkably dickish comment to make.

To my mind, 20 minutes is hardly an unreasonable delay when you're not an emergency. To make a snide remark about it when you're a guest in the country and getting the advantages of their free health services is just poor taste and bad manners.

muyuu3• 14 years ago

It was obviously a joke and I seriously doubt anyone would be offended by that. I know I'm not and I'm relatively understanding about the austerity measures.

ajross2• 14 years ago

It's also considered polite to cut people waiting for an ambulance to arrive to take them to the hospital a little slack.

adnam• 14 years ago

Jeez, calm down. It was a joke.

igorgue• 14 years ago

Spanish speaker here. That's a joke, like, 100% a joke, I can imagine the situation, everyone worried and complaining about the ambulance delay. He wanted to calm everyone down.

dclowd9901• 14 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Stallman well-regarded for his incredibly tactless, dickish and knuckleheaded assertions?

me_myselft3• 14 years ago

Here, there is a picture when he was in the ambulance: https://p.twimg.com/AsjR-wCCEAEVxLa.jpg

Cribstopper• 14 years ago

Here's my original post of the picture from Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/Cribstopper/status/200641059389313024...

jonknee• 14 years ago

Ironic that the only way I was able to read that article was through non-free software (Google Translate). Hope he's OK.

jacoplane• 14 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apertium

Kindly funded by the Spanish government :)

conradfr• 14 years ago

Spanish has its specification open :)

brudgers2• 14 years ago

I was surprised at how much of it I understood...a foundation in Latin, and years of watching soccer on Spanish networks I guess.

hub_• 14 years ago

Nope. You could learn Spanish and understand it. It is not like the content is encoded in a proprietary or patent encumbered format.

tobiasbischoff• 14 years ago

i will not make a parrot joke here. i will not make a parrot joke here. i will not make a parrot joke here. ..

ceejayoz• 14 years ago

Maybe Microsoft tried the "Surprise! You were actually using Vista!" trick on him.

raganwald6• 14 years ago

Social/Moral question: Is it acceptable to wish Mr. Stallman well in light of allegations that he has advocated for truly awful practices?

e.g. Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.

http://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html

mhartl2• 14 years ago

Being skeptical of a claim isn't the same as advocacy.

raganwald6• 14 years ago

I agree with that, but I also know that we all make choices about which things we defend either directly or indirectly. Lawyers defend clients regardless of the repugnance of the allegations because it serves the greater good. Those of us who are not lawyers have the luxury of picking and choosing our battles.

I can’t read the man’s mind, but I do know that he has made a choice to discuss the subject and a choice to poke holes in an argument made by one side of the subject, and the choice to leave that comment right there without any attempt at balance or qualification.

jsprinkles3• 14 years ago

Bold comment. Privately, I was disappointed that he was fine after reading the news; I suspect that you're not alone in your views based on that and I had a similar moral debate internally.

I'm proud of you for lending your username on HN to remind everybody how truly awful of a person he can be, but I fear that even your clout cannot save this comment from people that love him.

raganwald6• 14 years ago

Actually, my comment on the situation was "My thoughts are with RMS, an important voice and pioneer:”

https://twitter.com/#!/raganwald/status/200664134960939008

I got an earful about him from other people both publicly and privately, and I also recall a thread right here on HN a while back where there were allegations of (and spirited discussion about) his interest in getting young men into his hotel room at conferences.

I’m definitely not criticizing anyone who wishes him well, wishes poorly of him, or just wishes he would step out of the limelight (there seem to be more than a few people who consider him an liability to the open source movement at the moment regardless of past contributions). I was just trying to stick my finger in the wind and ask other people how they feel, not suggest how people are supposed to feel.

padolsey• 14 years ago

Silencing dialogue, no matter how repulsive it may seem to you, is never the answer, especially in a "free" and "open" society.

gyardley2• 14 years ago

Wow, I had no idea.

That's repugnant. Why do people still invite him to conferences? Surely there's less-objectionable representatives of his views on software.

rbanffy7• 14 years ago

Free speech also includes speech you disagree with and the exercise of democracy implies the need to discuss things that are repugnant to you.

I do not agree with them, but I defend their (both Dutch pedophiles and RMS) right to state their opinions. Even if I strongly disagree with both.

wtracy• 14 years ago

Um, because he's never stood up and advocated legalization of pedophilia at a conference? (Or even actually advocated legalization of pedophilia at all, but that's a separate issue.)

meatpopsicle• 14 years ago

And this is why raganwald's flamebait is indeed flamebait; gyardley decided to run with someone else's opinion/third-hand information without researching whether or not it was true, or even in context.

Which is pretty much what raganwald wanted to happen: fear, uncertainty, and doubt have been successfully seeded.

jasonlotito• 14 years ago

Stating a fact, and being skeptical of the claims is not the same as advocating for.

If advocating for better understanding of something and simply not buying into the "think of the children" argument can be called advocating for something, well no. That's dishonest and disheartening, and reeks of a vendetta, or at the very least, a petty mind.

It's one thing to support something. It's another thing to be skeptical.

You'd have to have something more than just conjecture from RMS. Nothing I've read or found suggests he is an advocate.

And yes, I realize you are just asking this question.

rwos2• 14 years ago

Asking such a loaded question when RMS can't even defend himself is just incredible cheap. If you had genuine interest in knowing whether these allegations are true, you could have asked differently (and on a different occasion). No, that's not a "Social/Moral" question, that's just a statement. I would down-vote you, if I could.

mattbriggs2• 14 years ago

its not an allegation when you link to richardstallman.org. What he said was

"Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization.

I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."

skrebbel4• 14 years ago

There, you're doing it.

It is all right for someone to be skeptical about any commonly held view, except when it's about sex with minors.

In any discussion about any kind of sex with anyone under 18 whatsoever, if you're not 100% fully completely convincedly against it, then you're a bad person!!1

Why can't we just discuss this? Like we can discuss anything else? Especially in the US, where the norm appears to be that the KKK people and the Westboro Baptist nutcases are insane, but they should still be allowed to say what they think? Why is that ok with nazis and homo haters, but not for people who are merely skeptical about the current social norm wrt sex with minors?

It's this same attitude that allows governments to block half the internet, it's to seek out the child pornographers! What, you're against my law? Hey guys, this one here is in favour of child pornography!

Note: I completely share the common opinion that sex with minors is bad and that there are only very few edge cases to be found where it isn't (e.g. a sexually active couple, both 17 years old, one turns 18 and is now a peadophile? surely not). I just think that, like everything else in the world, if we're civilized, we'll allow the discussion.

excuse-me• 14 years ago

You can get married at 16 in the UK (and most of europe) but if you took a picture of your wife giving birth you would be an evil child pornographer.

raganwald6• 14 years ago

Well actually, I haven’t expressed an opinion about whether his words are acceptable or whether he’s a bad person, whatever that means. I have heard more than a few people taking me to task for wishing him good health on account of his words, and one of the reasons I posted this was to hear from people like you.

DanBC• 14 years ago

> I just think that, like everything else in the world, if we're civilized, we'll allow the discussion.

He's not discussing it. He's just expressing an opinion. It's an opinion which appears to be based in ignorance. Without any reference to evidence it's just an opinion, and it's unfortunately close to the opinions given by paedophiles.

People have spent many years trying to get the harm done by paedophiles taken seriously. It's frustrating when someone with a large audience blurts out the same ignorant nonsense that victims have been fighting for years.

So, feel free to say that sexual abuse with children is not harmful - just make sure to read some of the extensive evidence before you do.

sp3323• 14 years ago

Actually in New Hampshire you can get married at age 14 (with parental consent) and up here I don't think it's illegal to have sex with anyone under 18 as long as you are within 1 or 2 years of them in age. I've heard in Florida it can be suddenly illegal though, birthdays must be awkward...

icebraining6• 14 years ago

I don't know if RMS said it in this sense, but pedophilia is actually the sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

Attraction to 17 year olds is ephebophilia.

olalonde• 14 years ago

You can be skeptical about paedophilia just like you can be skeptical about evolution. The thing is that there is a lot of science and solid arguments why voluntary paedophilia is a bad idea.

b0rsuk• 14 years ago

Am I the only person to notice the word "voluntarily" (sic) ? Presumably he meant willingness of both sides. I haven't given the subject much thought, but it's certainly not in the same league as someone joining you in your bathtub against your will.

figglesonrails2• 14 years ago

Legally, minors are considered "incompetent", the idea being that they wouldn't know if something would be harmful to them in the long run. Additionally, the level of wisdom/intelligence is just too different -- children are extremely easy to manipulate compared to adults, especially since adults are almost unanimously regarded as "authority figures", doubly so if a family member. Voluntary means little if you can't reason at the level of an adult. I don't think we can honestly say that a 7 - 10 year old child has the same reasoning and experience to make good choices.

cobrausn• 14 years ago

Well, considering he considers the practice of having children 'menacing' (his words, not mine), even when it is the children of contributors to his own projects, I don't find myself really surprised.

http://edward.oconnor.cx/2005/04/rms

rbanffy7• 14 years ago

Yes. He's a human being, with the same right to hold opinions different from mine or yours and to defend those opinions as we do. He didn't defend pedophiles - he stated a fact (that they were organizing a party) and an opinion (that he has doubts about the harm it does).

He's probably wrong about the harm, but even being wrong doesn't void his right to free speech, or to life.

figglesonrails2• 14 years ago

He's not advocating...

The question (which is unethical to research) is "does voluntary pedophilia harm children?"

In all honestly, the answer is "probably most of the time". Right now, we can't say with absolute certainty that the answer is "probably most of the time". However, the cost of finding out the answer is via a controlled experiment too great, and given the ethics of science today, it definitely shouldn't be researched. We have a lot of reason to believe that children aren't mature enough to handle the consequences, and there are very common negative consequences associated with pedophilia that have been noted for decades. This evidence strongly points to the idea that it is bad, but it isn't proof any more than an apple falling is proof of gravity (it's a case for, but not a proof of). Our society saying "it's bad" isn't proof either.

What Stallman is writing is that he is skeptical of the claim that it is bad. That is a belief, and as already mentioned, testing it would be incredibly unethical. That doesn't make you a bad person for saying that without proof, you refuse to accept a claim.

While what he says may seem heretical, to burn him as a heretic is wrong. Until he says "we should test this" or "I support this group and/or changes of current laws", he hasn't suggested anything that would endanger/harm anyone. The proper response isn't "HERETIC", it is facts that we do know that suggest that this belief is likely (even if not proven in a formal study to be) wrong. For example, bed wetting, PTSD, sexual repression, hypersexualized behavior, extreme depression are symptoms experienced later in life. I don't know what the voluntary/involuntary ratio is, but this suggests that there are serious psychological consequences. Experts in the field would know more. The point being that in an open society, we discuss and counter, not silence and shut down.

Many people believe P = NP despite the years of no solution and a general consensus that researching a polynomial time algorithm is a waste of time. We don't have a proof that P =/= NP, so we can't counter, so we can't counter those who believe it, even if we regard their beliefs to be misinformed or likely to be wrong.

jhuni• 14 years ago

> Is it acceptable to wish Mr. Stallman well in light of allegations that he has advocated for truly awful practices?

He never actually advocated pedophilia, so what awful practices are you saying that he advocates?

patrickaljord• 14 years ago

He's ok http://www.fsf.org/news/richard-stallman-speech-in-barcelona...

tomrod• 14 years ago

Thanks for letting us know. I really like rms, even if I don't agree with his every position. Here's to hoping he gets into good health soon.

hkmurakami• 14 years ago

RMS is controversial, extreme, and perhaps even crazy.

But it's scary to imagine a world without the counterpoint that RMS singularly embodies.

In a way, he evokes images of the Dalai Lama: In (metaphorical) exile, regarded as a heretic from many, and revered as a guiding beacon by others.

ktizo4• 14 years ago

Someone else already said this, but thanks for the news.

mandreko• 14 years ago

Did he choke on the toenail this time?

ch0wda• 14 years ago

TIL: Richard Stallman has a heart.

kprobst2• 14 years ago

One of these days it's going to be for real and I wonder how many of his fans will be enraged when someone says something like "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone".

billpatrianakos3• 14 years ago

All of them. It's been my experience that Stallman fans refuse to deal with even fair criticism of him. That aside, I hope no one says that about him or anyone else ever. I have a lot of problems with Stallman and his ideology but when he dies I hope we can all take the high road. We may think it's the man we don't like but it's really his actions and beliefs we have a problem with and when a well respected public figure like him dies it's just common decency not spit on his grave like that. When someone dies you should get past all the negativity you hold for a person and remember their humanity. To some he may have been an asshole in life but in death we're reminded that the deceased had family they loved, hopes and dreams, and changed people's lives in a small way just by having lived and interacted with others. I was one of the people who was outraged by what he said when Steve Jobs died but I'll forgive it when Stallmam goes because of what I just said earlier. Let's hope he's alright and take the high road.

By the way, "he did not, for example, have a heart attack". Really? There are no confirmed details but he definitely didn't have a heart attack? Well are there confirmed details or not? If he didn't have a heart attack then there's at least one confirmed detail, right? Why the need to clarify that one point? I'm not saying its a lie but whenever someone tells me "I don't know what happened but I know this one thing didnt happen" they're either guessing or hiding something.

lwhi2• 14 years ago

It amazes me that Stallman is viewed in this way. Steve Jobs was undeniably an asshole to many .. and Steve Jobs' fans refuse to deal with even fair criticism of him.

There's a strange warped perspective at play.

sp3323• 14 years ago

That's not a detail. And that's not confirmed, that's denied.

CamperBob23• 14 years ago

We may think it's the man we don't like but it's really his actions and beliefs

(Shrug) I am my actions and beliefs. There's nothing else to me. I don't know about Stallman, though.

rbanffy7• 14 years ago

Consider the possibility there may be an afterlife and they both will have to endure each other for eternity.

I'd die just to watch it.

lumberjack2• 14 years ago

Why would people even hate Richard Stallman, anyway?

It's perfectly OK to attack his ideologies but I don't see why you'd hate him personally as if he's some villain that is hurting people in some way or another. The guy is merely advocating his ideals. He's not enforcing them. He's not dominating any markets and enforcing his ideologies on people. He's not profiting of his ideologies. He doesn't even enjoy any power. If you don't like him, you can easily ignore him. You won't be affected.

mibbitier6• 14 years ago

He influences others with his (IMHO poisonous ideology). For some bizarre reason, some people listen to his mad rhetoric. That's why others dislike him.

IMHO, he hurts several things. He hurts free software, and he hurts the software industry as a whole.

njloof• 14 years ago

Is that the sound of Dave Winer deleting the comments?

stiff• 14 years ago

Not that many, he doesn't have a marketing department.

Joeboy2• 14 years ago

If someone's able to make a decent case as to why rms being out of the picture makes the world a better place, they should totally be able to say that if it's their opinion. If they're just being a dick then yes, that will be annoying.

benihana• 14 years ago

This presents an interesting situation. Is Stallman okay with being hooked up to medical computers even though they may not be running free software? What about the privacy issues involved in being checked into a hospital?

zackzackzack• 14 years ago

If it were anyone but Stallman, I would have thought you were being an ass about the situation. But realistically, I could see that being a concern for him and his ethics. I hope he doesn't die on principle quite yet though. There aren't too many FOSS clinics AFAIK.

bostonpete• 14 years ago

I don't see how it would realistically be a concern for him. That's like saying he wouldn't be willing to get on a plane or drive a car b/c they use closed source software...

tjr• 14 years ago

http://www.stallman.org/articles/asked_to_lie.html

sp3323• 14 years ago

Interesting. A similar thing happened to me at college: I had to sign that I would abide by a license agreement that was not actually available for me to read. I signed the paper, because it was MS software and I figured it was probably the usual EULA junk. A few weeks later, I was told that the college was possibly in violation of their agreement with MS because of my behavior! I went to the office and was scolded for buying more than one copy. I told them I had no idea, since I was never shown the agreement. They said, "Oh, we don't really show that to people. But you need to abide by it, we could be in big trouble if you don't!"

redthrowaway2• 14 years ago

I'm not rms, and I don't speak for him, but his opposition to non-free software is predicated upon the claim that it harms the user. As death is arguably a greater harm than any non-free software could inflict, I suspect he would say that it is not wrong to use non-free software to save a life if no free alternative is readily available.

You can ask him yourself, if you want: rms@fsf.org

He replies to almost all emails within a couple of days.

EDIT: He actually answered a very similar question in his reddit AMA [1]:

22. two_front_teeth: Suppose your doctor told you that you needed a medical procedure to survive but that the procedure would require inserting a device inside of your body which ran proprietary software. Would you be willing to have the procedure done to save your life?

RMS: The only way I could justify this is if I began developing a free replacement for that very program. It is ok to use a nonfree program for the purpose of developing its free replacement.

[1] http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/rms-ama.html

lumberjack2• 14 years ago

To continue with the above comment, I'd like to point out that RMS has valid concerns regarding non-free software running inside your body.

You don't want to have a buggy pacemaker with unencrypted unprotected wireless access.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/27/buggy_pacemaker_code...

https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2010/transparent-m...

Moreover I don't feel comfortable using a technology that is owned, developed and maintained exclusively by one company.

zdouglas• 14 years ago

> The only way I could justify this is if I began developing a free replacement for that very program.

If the Oracle suit taught me anything, it's to be careful when using APIs.

laconian• 14 years ago

Perhaps he would be, so long as the EKG readout was transcribed into ASCII text and emailed to the nurse, who reads it using Mutt.

mikebike• 14 years ago

This Stallman quote (transcript from an interview) may be instructive here:

"And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because those are places where you don't download software to install. It's not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important."

Source: http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html

tzs• 14 years ago

A similar argument could be made about software running on servers, and circa that same time as that quote on microwave ovens I believe Stallman in fact took the position that servers did not raise such issues either.

He's changed his mind about servers since then, so I wonder if he also has since changed his mind on devices?

dschobel• 14 years ago

I was thinking about this just the other day as I was getting a flu vaccine. As far as accepting closed source technology in your life, that seems like the vastly more salient domain.

mikegerwitz• 14 years ago

http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

> However, if I am visiting somewhere and the machines available nearby happen to contain non-free software, through no doing of mine, I don't refuse to touch them. I will use them briefly for tasks such as browsing. This limited usage doesn't give my assent to the software's license, or make me responsible its being present in the computer, or make me the possessor of a copy of it, so I don't see an ethical obligation to refrain from this. Of course, I explain why they should migrate the machines to free software, but I don't push them hard, because that would be counterproductive.

exDM692• 14 years ago

Medical software is something that should be more free. The software in medical equipment goes through less rigorous review than the rest of the system. There as a recent paper about the review process and closedness of medical software and there is little to no software audits required for getting approval from officials.

The first fatalities from software in medical systems were in mid-80's when an X-ray machine gave excess radiation to patients because of a programming mistake. I recall it was an integer overflow.

This issue is more serious than just making fun of RMS's extremist views.

(sorry for the lack of links to sources, I'm sure you can find them if you're interested)

jk4930• 14 years ago

This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

ginko• 14 years ago

I'm really beginning to worry about rms's health. I recently saw a tv interview of him on russia today where he seemed to have put on a lot of weight.

I hope he doesn't overexert himself.

tranzparency• 14 years ago

What's strange is Wikipedia shows him as deceased. First sentence says: Richard Matthew Stallman (16 March 1953 – 10 May 2012), often shortened to rms,[1] was an American software freedom activist and computer programmer.

recoiledsnake• 14 years ago

Wikipedia had him as expired briefly, had to do a double take.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Stallman&#...

chj• 14 years ago

i don't like all he's promoting, but hope he will get well soon. Bless!

etfb• 14 years ago

"Stallman, conocido por sus excentricidades..."

The wonderful thing about having a smattering of French and Latin is that I can recognise "damned with faint praise" even in a language I don't know.

(Hint for the mono-lingual: http://translate.google.com/#auto|en|Stallman%2C%20conocido%...)

giis• 14 years ago

Get well soon,RMS.

robwgibbons• 14 years ago

"Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated"

Richard Stallman Collapses At Barcelona Conference

Related Stories