Slashdot Mirror

Main Entry: loosen
Pronunciation: 'lü-s&n
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): loosened; loosening /'lüs-ni[ng], 'lü-s&n-i[ng]/
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to release from restraint
2 : to make looser
3 : to relieve (the bowels) of constipation
4 : to cause or permit to become less strict -- often used with up
intransitive senses : to become loose or looser.

Duh.

I didn't mean all at once. Sometimes he's inaccurate, sometimes he's incorrect. :)

BTW, where is your nick from? It's familiar and I have a mental image of a short person connected with it... but I can't for the life of me remember where it comes from.

Golias was the (totally fictional) patron saint of the goliards (pronounced "GAHL-yards"), wandering musicians who studied their craft in churches and monasteries, and paid for their travel expenses by entertaining in pubs and various other... er... night spots. The goliards are sometimes credited with a lot of the drinking-song melodies that you can pick out of medieval chants (and a lot of bawdy pagan songs about the monks and priests who drink too much).

Webster describes the goliards like this:
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, goliard, glutton, from gole throat, from Latin gula -- more at GLUTTON
Date: 15th century
: a wandering student of the 12th or 13th century given to the writing of satiric Latin verse and to convivial living and minstrelsy

(I was once a music teacher, before I became a professional techie.)

I think you should look up the definition of 'facetious'.


--

Yes.
--

God, I get so sick of those spammers around here who call themselves trolls. What happened to the real trolls, that would post inflamatory stuff just to get a response? What happened when you could proudly declare *THWACK* when you detected a troll? Okay, this isn't a good example, but still I'm glad someone is at least trying.

anyway... From Merriam-Webster online (emphasis mine):
piracy
Function: noun
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright.

Oh, and *THWACK*

People are copying music because they feel somewhat disenfranchised with the options they have at their disposal in the digital space.

The key word is disenfranchisement, meaning "deprivation of a privilege, immunity or right" . Regardless of the empirical or anechdotal evidence we may have as to the root cause of music trading, the fact remains that the public has been deprived of:

• The right to pay a fair price for exactly the music they want, no more.
• The right to both time- and space- displace the purchased music and listen to it in any and all the audio appliances they own.
• The privilege of choosing from among the entire spectra of music, not just selected genres or unsigned artists.
• The right to integrate music into their culture, to treat it as any kind or manner of culture is treated: examined, commented, exchanged, emulated, deconstructed and reintegrated.

THS
---

One could ask the same question about those who claim that they know this project won't work.

And, if you really want to get into a discussion about arrogance, how about all the "you suck because you're a Winblows luser!" penguinheads and devil worshipers out there, hmm? If that's not an example of "a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims," I don't know what is. (Merriam-Webster OnLine; unfortunately it doesn't give a viable or obvious way to bookmark the exact query)

For the record, I'm one of those "Winblows lusers," though I am learning BSD on a "lab" box built from assorted fragments of previous systems. I don't use Windows because I believe it to be the best thing since sliced bread; I think there are some areas that truely and honestly suck boulders through a stirring straw, BSODs being the least of my concerns at times. I use Windows because it gets the job done, and without an excessive amount of hassle. Many here may poo-poo GUIs as "point and drool" or something similar, but guess what? It gets the f*cking job done. Most users (which doesn't cover (m)any /. readers) don't care about the legacy cruftage. They don't care about whether Microsoft is stifling competition (I think MS does exactly that, in spite of their NewSpeak-ish "Freedom to Innovate," but that's irrelevant right now), nor about the fact that even if they buy a barebones computer without an OS they're still paying for Windows because of obnoxious alternative-stifling contracts with computer manufacturers.

You want to know what they care about? They care about $POPULAR_GAME. They care about writing letters to grandma, $SIGNIFICANT_OTHER, or others. They care about being able to balance their checkbooks online. And, most importantly, they want to use their computer with little to no effort, instead of taking time to compile source code, install RPMs, or anything else that's part and parcel of UNIX and UNIX-like OSes.

And you know what? What they want does matter, because it's their wishes that drive the market. You (generic "you") can go on about how st00pid they are, how much they're "lusers," and otherwise look down on users who don't toe the $ALTERNATE_OS line (and that is how it looks to many who only use Windows, that the anti-MS people, as a group, are as sheepishly minded as the anti-MS people claim Windows users are), but the fact remains that they're the ones who are putting up the cash, and who create enough of a perceived demand to make companies want to provide a supply.

Now, back to the subject of this story, Open Windows. I'm not up on all the technical aspects, so I can't comment on that. However, I would like to see them continue, and even encourage them to do so. "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Lord Tennyson, Ulysses. Don't yield to the naysayers, folks.

For those of you posting to the general effect of "Why bother?", you should ask themselves a question, and be true to yourself (if no one else) when answering. The question is this: Why do you think it's important to put down the project? If you didn't think it was important, you'd just glance, say "yeah, whatever," then move on. You're not, though. You're taking the time (to varying degrees) to post to the uberthread, whereas just a passing glance takes a small fraction of the time, regardless of how much (or, more accurately, how little) thought and/or effort you put into your post.

Dan "Think about it" Poore

Opps... Told you I'm not too bright when it comes to Astronomy... and I'm not too bright when it comes to astrology either obviously :-)

For those that are as dumb as me, these were taken from this dictionary...

Astrolgoy - the divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects

Astronomy - the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties

Again, sorry for the ignorance :-)

republic:
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit

On the other hand,

democracy:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government

zvezda
Translates directly to star.

Zarya
A city of north-central Nigeria south-southwest of Kano. It is a processing center in a cotton-growing region. Population, 267,300. This is not dawn as implied by our friend DigitalDragon.

Grammar nazi's conclusions:
If you search for zvezda at dictionary.com, then you will get over 2 MB of zip codes. That is not nice. DigitalDragon is also not nice for supplying false information.

sulli

sulli

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary disagrees with you - see their definition of orientate, which dates from 1849.

Although it's true that "object-oriented" is the more common phrase, "orientated" does get used some outside the U.S., I've noticed.

Main Entry: administrate
Pronunciation: -"strAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -trated; -trating
Etymology: Latin
administratus, past participle of administrare
Date: circa 1617

The sentence could be better written like this (for example): ``My kneejerk response is to consult a dictionary:''

Remember, grammar nazi Sir, good grammar doesn't just apply to ordinary text, it applies to hypertext as well.

The hypergrammar nazi. Keeping /. free of hypergrammatical errors for three minutes.

Here's my kneejerk response...

gender
1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass
2 a : SEX b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

sex (non-intercourse definitions)
1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male
2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females

From Merriam-Webster Online (my printed copy is away from the computer), on the vile democracy:

Main Entry: de-moc-ra-cy
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

And for your precious republic:

Main Entry: re-pub-lic
Function: noun
Etymology: French republique, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC
Date: 1604
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit "the French Fourth Republic"
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity "the republic of letters"
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia

And if you look at the roots of the words, Republic means "Public thing", Democracy means "Rule by the people". The meanings of the two words as used to describe a political system overlap so strongly that in nearly any context they can be used interchangably.

The grammar nazi's opinion:

export
1 : to carry away : REMOVE
2 : to carry or send (as a commodity) to some other place (as another country)

import
2 : to bring from a foreign or external source; especially : to bring (as merchandise) into a place or country from another country

reverse (as adjective)
1 a : opposite or contrary to a previous or normal condition b : having the back presented to the observer or opponent
3 : acting, operating, or arranged in a manner contrary to the usual
4 : effecting reverse movement

Grammar nazi's conclusions:
The above 3 meanings for reverse, as applied to import are equivalent to at least one export meaning. To answer zztzed's question: yes, indubitably

Where as people who don't read an entire post before making a knee-jerk reaction are towers of intellect.

Perhaps you should go here and look up "sarcasm", if you can manage to read the whole entry before wondering why I sent you to a pronounciation guide.

what the hell is 'holography?'

Main Entry: enharmonic
Pronunciation: "en-(")här-'mä-nik
Function: adjective
Etymology: French enharmonique, from Middle French, of a scale employing quarter tones, from Greek enarmonios, from en in + harmonia harmony, scale
Date: 1794
: of, relating to, or being notes that are written differently (as A flat and G sharp) but sound the same in the tempered scale
- enharmonically /-ni-k(&-)lE/ adverb

--

What would you consider a retailer then?

From Merriam-Webster :

1. to sell in small quantities directly to the ultimate consumer

He did not specify major corporation. Has anyone asked Compaq? I know they have those test servers running many different OS's include FreeBSD.

Actually, the word "arsenal" is listed in the dictionary as having both meanings that you described. The phrase "learning curve", however, still has the classic meaning steep==fast from 1922. Try looking them up on Merriam-Webster.

People like you should have their arms and legs broken with iron bars.

shouldn't the plural of radius be radiii?

No, it's radii. (only two i's)

Look here or here to find the reasons "virii" is stupid.

--

Check here and here.

--

No, sorry, you're wrong - that's not in question. Does the word "fact" mean anything to you?

Microsoft meets the legal definition of a monopoly... you're not the first to point this out. I stand corrected. I was thinking more of monopoly in the dictionary sense:

1. exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2. exclusive possession or control

The legal definition of a monopoly, apparently, concerns percentage of sales, which is an awkward metric, since strictly speaking Linux itself is not offered for sale. But like I said, I stand corrected.

This does not, however, change my opinion on the whole; I assume my reasoning is obvious.

If you don't buy that, you can go for the implied "of things that are" in the slogan. Apple would want you to think in the same way, but of different things (like, say, a sealed chunk of amorphous plastic with an embedded monitor, a "keyboard," and a "mouse").

Hope this helps!
--
New empires...began ebbing and flowing all over the place like Moon Pies on a hot sidewalk.

Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.

Not true. The following is more accurate:

Without copyright law, Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without being able to prevent anyone from attempting to obtain the source to their changes.

It is copyright law that would allow Microsoft to prevent anyone from attempting to obtain the source of their changes. For example, without copyright law, there would be no legal restrictions on reverse engineering.

Perhaps you meant to write:

With current U.S. copyright law, if the Linux source was not copyrighted (or rather copylefted), Microsoft would be able to take the latest Linux source, make a whole bunch of UI changes, and release it as "Microsoft Linux", without letting anyone have the source to their changes.

Notice, too, that I added the qualification U.S. copyright law since I doubt that all countries share the same concepts regarding "copyrights"; by this I mean legal systems that share the same view of copyrights defined in U.S. law, since it was the birth-country of the GPL, and not only just U.S. copyright law.

That is why the Free Software Foundation begins its description of copyleft with the following:

The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain (18k characters), uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software (18k characters). They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

In my opinion, a problem with the current U.S. copyright law can be found in the following definition of public domain (from Merriam-Webster OnLine).

Main Entry: public domain
Function: noun
Date: 1832
1 : land owned directly by the government
2 : the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to appropriation by anyone

In particular, I have a problem with the second definition. My own "common sense" definition of public domain would read as follows.

2: the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent held by any individual person, and are not subject to appropriation by any one person because they belong to the community at large

We have Locke to thank for the idea that public domain merely means that the thing in the public domain is waiting for any owner to come plant a flag in it. If you are a libertarian and think that Locke is the end-all and be-all of the philosophies of freedom, then you'll have no problem with this. However, I do not agree that Locke is The Answer nor do I find the definition of public domain based on his notions of property rights to be "natural" or intuitive. I think that there might be some benefits to the notion of reforming copyright laws such that it would allow for "my" alternative second definition of "public domain". Of course, the GPL is an attempt to invent a public domain according to "my alternative" second definition, which does not exist in the current world of copyright law, which is why it is not called a copyright but rather a copyleft.

But not to pick a nit...

Main Entry: product
Pronunciation: 'prä-(")d&kt
Function: noun
Etymology: in sense 1, from Middle English, from Medieval Latin
productum, from Latin, something produced, from neuter of
productus, past participle of producere; in other senses, from Latin
productum
Date: 15th century
1 : the number or expression resulting from the multiplication together
of two or more numbers or expressions
2 a : something produced b : something resulting from or necessarily
following from a set of conditions
3 : the amount, quantity, or total produced
4 : CONJUNCTION 5

No mention of being sold.
--
Patrick Doyle

Or is sex an unnatural act?

Or is there only one "God"?

Not that any of this matters. You seem to be afraid of blasphemy (whatever that means) of some organized sort. It is a statistical certainty that others disagree with your definition of blasphemy, even to the point of deducing you as the blasphemer. Which party is right, and justified in their use of .god, and which party is wrong and unjustified" I always like to think of myself as being correct in every context, too, but whenever I get to feeling that way, some Christian or another comes along and disagrees with me. Feh.

Welcome to the real world, where freedom still reigns and some folks are still able to draw their own conclusions. Even about God (or gods), and where He/She/It/they may shove it (or not). Enjoy it while it lasts, as I assure you that the alternative is markedly inferior.

I'm sure this is a troll, but what the heck.
from M-W.com :

Main Entry: astrology
Pronunciation: &-'strä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English astrologie, from Middle French, from Latin astrologia, from Greek, from astr- + -logia -logy
Date: 14th century
1 archaic : ASTRONOMY
2 : the divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects
- astrological /"as-tr&-'lä-ji-k&l/ adjective
- astrologically /-k(&-)lE/ adverb

I'm sure this is a troll, but what the heck.
from M-W.com :

Main Entry: astrology
Pronunciation: &-'strä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English astrologie, from Middle French, from Latin astrologia, from Greek, from astr- + -logia -logy
Date: 14th century
1 archaic : ASTRONOMY
2 : the divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects
- astrological /"as-tr&-'lä-ji-k&l/ adjective
- astrologically /-k(&-)lE/ adverb

So tell Merriam-Webster and Oxford if you want to see something done.

the word I believe you're looking for is naïvté. don't worry. it's a common mistake made by people posing as intellectuals.

Woo hoo hoo, hahahaha! That is either the most classic case of pot-and-kettle ever or a superb troll. Try naïveté. http://www.m-w.com/ is your friend.

And yet, here in RMS's words we see a choice example of an atheist making precisely the same mistake: he cannot imagine a being who, by its very nature, has created all else that exists and therefore knows the rules, knows the very NATURE of every situation, and is therefore easily capable of distinguishing right and wrong (Note "wrong" on m-w.com - all 6 definitions of the adjective form presume some pre-existing "correct" or "right" thing which "wrong" is defined in contrast to). Whether such a being chooses to ACT in accordance with what it knows is right is a completely different question - where "act" could include a deliberate self-delusion - but again, Stallman's assertion only holds true if you assume that such a being is not capable of self-consistency.

If you allow that all that exists is derivative of one being which is capable of total knowledge of all that is derivative from it, and that it is capable of total self-consistency, then... ta-da... RMS is wrong. (Or, more likely, he just didn't think through that statement very carefully.)

The question then is whether

1. The laws or powers granted under law are morally or ethically "right" (for whatever definition you like of "right")
2. We should (for whatever definition of "should" you prefer) commit our resources and energies to supporting (whether financially or with our coding skills) products and/or entities which refuse to grant us freedoms that we feel are either "fundamentally right" (see 1) or "preferable, better, more productive, etc".

The quote in your sig is from shakespeare's "The Merchant Of Venice" (i forgot which character said it), not the X-Files.

I've heard that Shakespeare stole, err... borrowed some of his material from others, so Chris Carter isn't doing anything unusual or unheard of by ripping off Shakespeare...

You philistine.

From Merriam-Websters Online Collegiate Dictionary: one uninformed in a special area of knowledge.

Guilty as charged. I haven't read Shakespeare since high school over 20 years ago, and then it was under duress. He's just another DWM (dead white male) to me. Jeez, judging from the atrocious grammar/spelling of your average /. poster, who would have thought that ENGLISH majors hung out here!!!
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!

If this was a new topic it should have been posted as such, but obviously you were referring to what the parent had said about Metallica possibly being in the right.

"With that kind of stretching of words, you could as well call my comments bananas or power convertors."

Interesting use of hyperbole here, claiming that somehow I have taken your comments out of context, (interesting use of "could" here as opposed to the more correct "may" or "might" but hey, I'm no pedant) when in reality you are refusing to acknowledge that fact that you posted a weak, mindless comment and, when called on it, resorted to childish name calling.

love,

-Marc

p.s. look up acneic at http://www.m-w.com!!!

Flame all you want, I'll post more.

Main Entry: argument

Pronunciation: 'är-gy&-m&nt

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere Date: 14th century

1 obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION

2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade

The following section is being provided to remind you of what you posted. It is not verbatim.

The argument

Metallica has a right to complain.

Your rebuttal

No because they spend their money on on drugs and hookers.

New Argument

You have unjustly accused them.

Your rebuttal

"Sarcastic Comment""Name Calling"

Now with regards to

speaking one's mind strongly and honestly

I wonder if all of your opinions consist of drawing conclusions without facts, and name calling. Is this what you mean by speaking honestly?

Love,

-Marc

Flame all you want, I'll post more.

Flame all you want, I'll post more

Speaking of which, you could really use some training in this area yourself.

You have shown quite conclusively that you are one of the retarded acneic teenagers that you seem to despise so much.

I'm not a teenager, I don't have acne, though I *might* be retarded depending on one's point of view. You should have phrased that as you're no better than an ..., that would have made more sense.

I would recommend that you back up for a second, reread your post, take a deep breath, and chant "It's only Slashdot, It's only Slashdot".

This is slashdot, and that is why I feel free to speak freely.

Most people who have passed their retarded acneic teenage years can find more constructive ways to counter an argument besides poorly thought out sarcasm and name calling.

As I said, you could really use some help and training in flaming and rhetoric. It was not an "argument" to begin with. It was opinion. Look that up for yourself in a dictionary, you might feel enlightened.

And then ... here comes an actual argument: I've done name calling, I'm not ashamed of it, and I invite you to ask yourself ... what's worse, speaking one's mind strongly and honestly, or sueing Universities for bogus reasons just because you have the money and power to do so?

Hope this helps, too.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: axiom
Pronunciation: 'ak-sE-&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios
worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive -- more at AGENT
Date: 15th century
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

On the philosophy side, please note that simply because an axiom (using definitions [1,2] - three is nonsensical in philosophy) is used to construct a theory or 'logical' structure, it is not necessarily prone to truth.

I could take as an axiom, "Objectivism makes sense," but that doesn't make it so - it just makes it an axiom. An unfortunate and mistaken one. If you understand Aristotle, then you should have some kind of inkling of why Objectivism, even as a practical philosophy (as opposed to a logically sound one) won't work.

It is capitalism that protects individuals from the irrational or destructive behavior of others.

Really? And automatic weapons manufacturers should be allowed to sell to anyone they please. Your statement is actually the most irritating, unfounded, ill-informed, rationally indefensible statement I have seen on Slashdot for a long, long time. (I read at 0, by the way.)

Please take a few moments of your time to check into a critical thinking class somewhere.

Aside from that, just tell me you're a troll.

[Raymond] doesn't deny the importance of the breakup of AT&T -- he simply dismisses it as irrelevant since he views it as immoral. (Two wrongs don't make a right, he argues, as "AT&T was a creature of regulation." That's not quite a complete history, but it was not paternity that was at stake in my argument: The question was what cut the lock that AT&T had on innovation in telecommunications, not what created it.)

But the AT&T monopoly was created by the U.S. Government, via -- that's right -- regulation. Those interested in this history can see it online:

Here is a good history.

So, after a point maybe you are right -- maybe the only solution was to use the government to force some outcome on old AT&T. But to say this justifies "regulation" is analogous to cranking up your radio because you have your TV on so loud you cannot hear it. I trust the analogy is not lost on you.

Contract law, rightly limited property rights, antitrust law, the breakup of AT&T: These, I suggested, were regulations that had done good.

You takes your terms, and you makes your argument. As long as you are clear that essentially any governmental action is "regulation", then I suspect you will find a lot of people that think some "regulation" might be OK.

But if you restrict regulation to meaning something more like what is in Merriam Websters, then you are going to find some of us in the libertarian camp parting ways with you. The rule of law, property rights and other human rights -- these are one thing. Government fiat is another. Most people, I hope, can tell the difference. By conflating the two, you weaken your argument.

--

You haven't read much Marx. Communism could be characterized, in a 'pure' (meaning Marxist) form, as a distributed governmental system. The Internet may not be a communist idea, but as an allegorical model it's useful.

...the horizontal management structure some small to medium sized American corporations. And I doubt you can call them communists.

Well, you can't call them communists because they're capitalists. And a "horizontal management structure" still preserves the corporate heirarchy. On the other hand, the developmental heirarchy is definitely a more socialist construction - each contributes according to ability. It's just that the converse isn't true - each is not rewarded according to need (unless, maybe, you're looking at workstations).

"All people, no matter what financial status, have access."

You missed the point of this quote. "Access" to information is not equal or equivalent to being "in the know."

"Improvments in so-called "intellectual" property can be shared easily among many people without the interference of those in power who would profit by restraining new ideas."
::
Then why will people care to invent them? (...) People need some form of incentive besides a pat on the back.

(I removed the rest of that paragraph because it was nonsensical.) I think this statement can be rebuffed (or at least informed) by a cursory examination of the rest of the posts. Your assumptions are assumptions, nothing more.

Beyond that, you missed the point again: that there is a free exchange of information, within context, unlimited by market-based interference. It's like being in a research institution without the politics or the money (which balances, AFAIC) - work on what you want, and take it in the best direction according to your judgement (and through forking or input, that of the community). I think, if you try, you might be able to see the parallel to socialism there, too.

As far as me being scared not likely. Without political power/office communists are just a small contingent of people from liberal arts programs in schools on the West coast. There is no way in hell that anyone like that will ever get power in my country (the United States). In fact one of the sures ways to kill a senate bill is to tack a rider onto it that claims that the communist party will be the only political party in the US.

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. (Merriam-Webster)
First- sentence2: you're wrong. No argument.
Second- sentence3: part one: don't make assumptions; part two: you're probably right. Let me explain why... Effectively, the idea behind communism was to raise the quality of life level for everyone to the same point, above the previous average. (Yes, I'm aware that I'm comparing a concept and an existing condition here - but there hasn't been a single instance of practiced, national communism that actually deserved the name.) Democracy as practiced in the US preserves the average very effectively. Majority rule in an uninformed and reactionary population is a conservative approach that tends towards mediocrity and 'known evils'. Sure - no way in the immediate future will we be able to consider a third political party as anything but a protest vote. Here's to optimism, though.

Last sentence: I don't know if it's true, but I'll take your word for it. Why? This is the country that harbored and nurtured McCarthyism. Is this a point of pride with you? Do I need to say anything more?

Furthermore, concerning the rest of your post, there was no threat of "real harm" in the original post. None at all, not even implicit. You interpreted it that way because you are an uninformed, reactionary bigot - and this is not a reactionary statement, as you've demonstrated quite enough of your knowledge and willingness to learn. As for your statement that there is no chance for communism to actually work, I again state that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to pretend you may, and you can do it in a public forum, but please remember that you expose your mind as soon as you start typing. Try to do this wisely. Others would appreciate it.

Every act of cooperation and assistance is not a communist idea. True enough. Every time someone says, "hey, this sort of resembles communism, which I like," it's not necessarily the raving of a lunatic. But... every communist idea should be an act of cooperation and assistance.

Thanks for your time.

You are wrong. Proprietary means someone owns it. Last I checked almost all open source software has a copyright on it showing who OWNS it. Check out definition 2 of proprietor .

The way I think of GPL software is under a group proprietary. It allows someone to alter it, but it and the alterations (as long as the software is distributed) still belongs to GNU's community. I didn't say open source because that is a larger set with licenses outside GNU's community.

According to Mirriam Webster's Dictionary (look under [2,adjective]), proprietary means something that something is "used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right". Nobody has the exclusive legal rights to Linux, therefore it's not proprietary.

In the article, Ransom Love also keeps spreading a common misconception about Free Software Licenses. He claims that if you make any modifications to Linux, the license demands that you distribute the changes. That is patently false. What the license demands is that if you distribute a modified version of Linux, you have to make the code to your modifications available. Anyone can keep any changes they want a secret, as long as they aren't distributing them. With fundimental misunderstandings like this, is it any wonder people think of Caldera and Ransom Love as outsiders when it comes to Linux.

----

Any post that does not conform to the Open Source Movement party line is instantly moderated to oblivion where no user, especially no non-logged in user ... is likely to see it, thereby supressing dissenting opinions

On the other hand, (and you knew it was coming), I see an awful lot of these "Anyone not toting the Open Source party light is moderated to oblivion". Now, admittedly, by definition I cannot know the complete extent of something I do not see, but the sheer number of such posts seems to undercut their thesis. After all, if the moderators were some great camarilla ("camarilla: n. a group of unofficial often secret and scheming advisers", from MW Online) gleefully moderating down non-Open Source comments, wouldn't they be cackling and moderating the complaints down to invisibility?

I surf at a level of "1", which means a logged-in user will automatically show up for me unless moderated down. ACs have a higher threshhold. Despite this, I see an awful lot of dissenting comments. Heck, some days, that's about all I see.

Clearly your mileage may vary but the moderation system seems to be working alright for me. But maybe I'm just another Linux groupie. :)