Slashdot Mirror
Why Oracle Can't Easily Kill PostgreSQL
ruphus13 writes "Claiming that 'PostgreSQL is a FOSS alternative to MySQL and hence Oracle should be allowed to pursue MySQL' is a specious argument, according to Monty Widenius. He fears that Oracle, or someone else, can easily squash PostgreSQL by just 'buying out' the top 20 developers. The Postgre community has fired back, calling that claim ridiculous. According to the article, 'PostgreSQL as a project is pretty healthy, and shows how vulnerable projects like MySQL are to the winds of change. PostgreSQL could die tomorrow, if a huge group of its contributors dropped out for one reason or another and the remainder of the community didn't take up the slack. But that's exceedingly unlikely. The existing model for PostgreSQL development ensures that no single entity can control it, it can't be purchased, and if someone decides to fork the project, the odds are that the remaining community would be strong enough to continue without a serious glitch.'"
"One guy tried that on me, but with $1000 on the table. Just to chew one strip of gum. I said no, and I'm proud of it."
You shouldn't be - you could have given that $1000 to a charity and simply not chewed gum of your own accord again. I'm all for principles, but far from being high minded and laudable that was plain selfish and retarded.
Do you mean to say that you do not chew gum on principle?
And you claim that passing over $1,000 for this 'principle' was a good idea?
Really?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Gun ownership is a Natural Right, and an absolute necessity without which government tyranny is impossible to avoid. Natural Rights don't come from a historical piece of paper no living person has signed, as brilliant as that piece of paper might have been at the time when it was written, Natural Rights is an economic concept, no different than the laws of physics or mathematics. Unless human nature suddenly changes, power will continue to corrupt, and checks and balances on absolute government power will remain a necessity and a duty of every freedom-loving individual on this planet (and beyond)!
That reminds me of that old C-64 game, "Auf Wiedersehen Monty"...
"I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole
When and as written, "militia" meant all white male free citizens, physically capable of combat, of an age generally between 16 and 45. "Organized militia" referred to the force represented by a gathering of these individuals. In no way did militia mean a force of government employees, armed by the government.
When and as written, "Well regulated" meant that each individual would show up when called with a standard amount of powder, shot, and compatible arms. It did not mean that they could not show up with additional arms; for instance, should a militiaman arrive at the assembly with a horse-drawn cannon, this would be entirely appropriate and welcome. In no way would it excuse them from bringing the expected powder, shot and so forth, however.
The phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the explicatory phrase of the 2nd amendment, which means that it presents a rationale for the operative phrase that follows. It is also sometimes referred to as the prefatory phrase, that is, it serves as a preface. It is non-exclusive; that is, it does not say that this is the only reason; its presence can only be interpreted as a sufficient reason.
The operative phrase of the 2nd amendment contains instructions to the government in the context of the constitution, which is the authorizing document for all lawmaking. The instructions say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
An accurate transcription in modern English is: "Because we need consistently armed and able citizens that may be quickly organized to fight to maintain the condition of freedom, the citizens' right to store and carry arms shall not be in any way diminished."
This maintains the prefatory / operative phrasing, and carries the precise meaning of each phrase forward.
The main thing one needs to understand about the prefatory phrase is that since it gives no instruction to the government, it carries no legitimate weight whatsoever with regard to the 2nd amendment's restriction upon making law that infringes on the citizen's right to keep and carry arms. That is entirely the province of the operative phrase.
The government does have a mechanism available to it to change the operative phrase, or for that matter the rest of the amendment as well. That is article five. They have not, to date, made use of this, and therefore amendment two remains 100% in effect, and any law or procedure that infringes on any citizen's right to keep and bear arms (not guns, arms *), is illegal from start to finish, an entirely unauthorized use of power.
Having said that, the government has obviously stepped outside its authorized bounds here, bringing the subject around to another reason citizens should be armed: when such unauthorized powers become intolerable, an attempt can be made by armed citizens to bring the government to heel by force. Many arguments are made that such an attempt in the modern environment would not succeed; even if that were so (doubtful, in my estimation - most such arguments are simplistic at best, not based upon realistic tactics, strategies and force balance of such a conflict), it would not in any way change the fact that it would be the right thing to do.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Gun ownership is a Natural Right, and an absolute necessity without which government tyranny is impossible to avoid. Natural Rights don't come from a historical piece of paper no living person has signed, as brilliant as that piece of paper might have been at the time when it was written, Natural Rights is an economic concept, no different than the laws of physics or mathematics. Unless human nature suddenly changes, power will continue to corrupt, and checks and balances on absolute government power will remain a necessity and a duty of every freedom-loving individual on this planet (and beyond)!
Abortion is also a natural right for women.
Freedom of Speech is also a natural right. That includes freedom from intimidation by gun toting nutters.
Freedom of Religion is also a natural right. This includes freedom from to reject any and all religion.
And gun rights do not support freedom of speech. Just look at Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, they have lots of guns, but no freedom of religion, and no freedom of speech either. But they certainly have plenty of guns.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.