Slashdot Mirror


Paper Retracted After Anti-Immigrant Scientist Bans Use of His Software (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit writes: An 11-year-old research paper describing Treefinder, a computer program used by evolutionary biologists, has been retracted after the program's developer banned its use in European countries he deemed too friendly to refugees. In September, German scientist Gangolf Jobb announced on his website that researchers in eight European countries, including Germany and the United Kingdom, were no longer allowed to use Treefinder, which builds phylogenetic trees from sequence data. The move sparked outrage among some scientists, and now, BMC Evolutionary Biology has pulled the 2004 paper describing the software because the license change 'breaches the journal's editorial policy on software availability.'

418 comments

  1. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What goes around comes around.

  2. Open Source license except H1B shops have to pay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's do it!

  3. Re:Easy to explain by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no question. The publisher is reacting to the change in license as well they should. Regardless of the motivation the license change violates their policy. What's the point of having a policy and then not following it?

  4. Seems counter-productive by Ghostworks · · Score: 1

    So the response to a tool becoming unavailable is to make information about the tool unavailable? I appreciate that this is supposed to put some pressure on Jobb, and I enjoy petty acts of spite against nutjobs as much as the next guy. But this seems like it just further harms the tool users (and potential tool users), not so much Jobb.

    1. Re:Seems counter-productive by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      If he's retroactively changed the license, it's not as if they have any choice in the matter.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Seems counter-productive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just use ape.

    3. Re:Seems counter-productive by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The change in license broke the terms of the journal. What response would you like them to make, the paper no longer follows the terms to be in the journal, should they just bend the rules for Jobb?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    4. Re:Seems counter-productive by Doc_Gamesh · · Score: 1

      Isn't it pretty much only a token thing in end-effect anyway? The paper is 11 years old, so I'm not sure what retracting it means at this point? I guess it disappears from the journal's archives, but would anyone using the software and wanting to cite it necessarily know that it's been retracted? If you're active in bioinformatics, sure, you'd probably know, but more than likely you would have already heard of his licensing restrictions anyway. I agree with it being retracted, on the grounds of the licensing change, just it seems more like a symbolic thing rather than censorship.

    5. Re:Seems counter-productive by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's no point in having an editorial policy if you don't enforce it. The policy says the journal only allows papers on freely available software; the author submitted the article under those conditions then reneged, so he loses.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Seems counter-productive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The paper doesn't count anymore, decrementing they guys h-index.

  5. Anti-Immigrant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Anti-Muslim "refugee" != Anti-immigrant

    1. Re:Anti-Immigrant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ no true scotsman

    2. Re:Anti-Immigrant? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Not precisely. Being against the members of some religion isn't the same as being against the members of all religions (different from you own).

      I'm not thrilled by Christians, but that doesn't mean I like Muslims. In fact, I consider that a higher proportion of them are likely to become violent criminals with a bias targeting non-Muslims than Christians are likely to become violent criminals with a bias targeting non-Christians. Please note, this is a statistical prediction, not a prediction targeting any particular individual. And it also has to do with the current culture I live in. There were times in the past when the prediction could quite reasonably have been reversed. (And not *that* far in the past. It should probably have been reversed in the early 1900's.)

      The Muslim religion, taken at face value, gives much more reason to be violent and bigoted towards non-Muslims than does the Christian religion, but both seem to give ample support towards either end of the scale (of violence) and people seem to come out of either with what they bring to it. So it's the enveloping culture more than the religion itself which is the determining factor. And, of course, a statistical variation among people as to how they react to an environment. The details of the religious doctrine seem to play a quite minor role, falling almost into the area of "This is useful as a justification.".

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Anti-Immigrant? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You'd make a lot of sense if the only adherents to any religion were fundamentalist, which is not the case. A moderate Muslim isn't called to violence even if it's in the Quran. Hint: when you make generalisations of billions of people you are not only wrong but ridiculous for even trying.

    4. Re:Anti-Immigrant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    5. Re:Anti-Immigrant? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. I'm not exactly disagreeing with your point.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  6. Not anti-immigrant by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The most egregious yet prevalent error in modern news reporting, is to conflate someone being against ILLEGAL immigration with someone being against LEGAL immigration.

    If you can't understand why someone who does not want people who are by definition criminals entering the country in large numbers, then heaven help you - because reality certainly will not and history just laughs at you.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not anti-immigrant by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If immigrants are granted asylum as refugees, how are they "by definition criminals"?

    2. Re:Not anti-immigrant by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Indeed, the two have been conflated. And it's not just illegal immigration; the way some countries are handling immigration (or refraining from handling it) and open their borderds to any and all is also in violation of national laws or international treaties. Even so, it's not well done to mix politics with science in this way. However I do wonder if the reaction and backlash would have been the same if Jobb would have banned the use of his software in countries that oppose unlimited immigration, such as Hungary or Slovenia.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Not anti-immigrant by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Informative
      This is from the author's own website: You can judge for yourself whether he makes any sort of distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

      Starting from 1st October 2015, I do no longer permit the usage of my TREEFINDER software in the following EU countries: Germany, Austria, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark - the countries that together host most of the non-european immigrants. For all other countries, the old license agreement remains valid. USA has already been excluded from using Treefinder in February 2015. This is all in accordance with the license agreement stated in the TREEFINDER manual since the earliest versions, which reserves me the right to change the license agreement at any time. I can do this because Treefinder is my own property.

      The reason: I am no longer willing to support with my work the political system in Europe and Germany, of which the science system is part. There is no genuine democracy, and I disagree with almost all of the policies. In particular, I disagree with immigration policy. Immigration to my country harms me, it harms my family, it harms my people. Whoever invites or welcomes immigrants to Europe and Germany is my enemy. Immigration is the huge corporations' interest, not peoples' interest. I am not against helping refugees, but they would have to be kept strictly separated from us Europeans, for some limited time only until they return home, and not being integrated here as cheap workers and additional consumers. Immigration unnecessarily defers the collapse of capitalism, its final crisis. The earlier the system crashes, the more damage can be avoided. Possibly a civil war in Europe. Not to mention the loss of our European genetic and cultural heritage.

      The most egregious yet prevalent error in modern news reporting, is to conflate someone being against ILLEGAL immigration with someone being against LEGAL immigration.

      How can these immigrants be ILLEGAL when the countries named allow them entry? That seems like a giant flaw in your point.

      If you can't understand why someone who does not want people who are by definition criminals entering the country in large numbers, then heaven help you - because reality certainly will not and history just laughs at you.

      Are the majority of people in this wave criminals? Where in the world did you get that information other than your own bias? The UN seems to disagree with you.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > If immigrants are granted asylum as refugees, how are they "by definition criminals"?

      If they are granted asylum, then they are (probably) not criminals, depending on the laws of the land and day. If they are not granted asylym, then they are criminals, depending on the laws of the land and day. What are you trying to say?

    5. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most egregious yet prevalent error in modern news reporting, is to conflate someone being against ILLEGAL immigration with someone being against LEGAL immigration.

      If you can't understand why someone who does not want people who are by definition criminals entering the country in large numbers, then heaven help you - because reality certainly will not and history just laughs at you.

      The dude is clearly racist, and he isn't trying to hide behind some arbitrary definition of 'legality.' From his website:

      "Immigration to my country harms me, it harms my family, it harms my people. Whoever invites or welcomes immigrants to Europe and Germany is my enemy. Immigration is the huge corporations' interest, not peoples' interest. I am not against helping refugees, but they would have to be kept strictly separated from us Europeans, for some limited time only until they return home, and not being integrated here as cheap workers and additional consumers. Immigration unnecessarily defers the collapse of capitalism, its final crisis. The earlier the system crashes, the more damage can be avoided. Possibly a civil war in Europe. Not to mention the loss of our European genetic and cultural heritage."

    6. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At least in Spain, and I suppose that it happens similarly in the rest of the EU, there is no such thing as "illegal" immigration, the term
      you are probably referring to is "irregular immigration", as immigration is not a crime.
      On the other hand, refugees are not immigrants, and there are laws that guarantee them asylum in the subscribing countries, which all EU
      countries happen to be.
      On a less polite side note, your comment sounds quite xenophobic.

    7. Re:Not anti-immigrant by sageres · · Score: 1

      This particular individual is anti-immigrant, but more precisely he belongs to anti-globalization camp. He believes in the left-wing philosophy that USA is the most evil entity in the world, who drives the world capital to itself by promoting mass immigration to the nations in Europe and driving the living wages down over there. Quite wacky and pretty much what I would expect from anti-globalists.

    8. Re:Not anti-immigrant by fightinfilipino · · Score: 1

      The most egregious yet prevalent error in modern news reporting, is to conflate someone being against ILLEGAL immigration with someone being against LEGAL immigration.

      If you can't understand why someone who does not want people who are by definition criminals entering the country in large numbers, then heaven help you - because reality certainly will not and history just laughs at you.

      except in the U.S., immigration laws are considered civil, not criminal, matters. persons here without immigration authorization are not criminals, by the actual definitions used in the law.

      this may differ in other countries, but typically immigration law has been under civil and not criminal statutes.

    9. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, I see. You, yourself, tar someone with a brush, then you accuse them of not being acceptable because they are tarred. Nicely played.

    10. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Can I get an even an anon explanation of why this is offtopic?

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    11. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Nutria · · Score: 0

      Don't forget this part: Immigration unnecessarily defers the collapse of capitalism, its final crisis.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    12. Re:Not anti-immigrant by squiggleslash · · Score: 0

      The fact the guy's attacks are on nation states should be a big flag that his views concern who those countries willingly let in, rather than illegal immigrants or illegal immigration.


        • Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re:Not anti-immigrant by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm saying that by forbidding use in countries that grant asylum, the author of this program is demonstrating a stance against even legal immigration.

    14. Re:Not anti-immigrant by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He says, " Immigration to my country harms me, it harms my family, ..." Are there a lot of immigrants writing software that builds phylogenetic trees from sequence data? Are they taking his job as a programmer and/or scientist? And, if so, does that harm him more if done (by either a local or immigrant) in his country than abroad? His work can be done anywhere.

      Or is he simply a xenophobic racist?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    15. Re:Not anti-immigrant by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I wonder how hard that would be to change? One of the biggest problems with illegal immigration here in the US is that you can't really stop it. The border is enormous and the way we handle things now the captured undocumented asshole is immediately punted back into Mexico to try again. If the offense carried with it a small prison sentence, say 6 months of forced labor (just warms my heart to say it) then his or her family would receive any of those dollars they so depend on and maybe that particular Mexican, Ecuadorean, Guatamalan, or whatever might not come back. Maybe "The Donald" will try that when he becomes Emperor for Life or whatever he plans on changing the title to.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    16. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      How can these immigrants be ILLEGAL when the countries named allow them entry? That seems like a giant flaw in your point.

      Maybe they didn't allow the Syrian TSA to go through their stuff when they were crossing the border? I'll bet that's at least a misdemeanor.

    17. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It harms him by having to pay more taxes to feed and care for them, and it hurts his family and kids when the jobs that are available start paying lower wages due to the large influx of jobless economic migrants.

      That took me all of ten seconds to come up with. Did you really ask a question without trying to think of the answer first?

    18. Re:Not anti-immigrant by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Well, he's suggesting that it alters how the government spends money, which he presumably pays in taxes. Also, his family could be in some other way impacted by immigration.

      To be honest, he could be xenophobic and racist. Or perhaps he is just fine with people from those places as long as they don't impact him in a manner he considers dangerous to him.

      Let's look at H1-Bs. There's nothing particularly wrong with Indians. They generally share the same spectrum of smart/dumb, nice/asshole that every other population has. However, using H1-B visas to bring them in, in an attempt to depress wages, may well impact someone in the US adversely. That person might have a right to complain and dislike the policy that allows this, without particularly disliking the actual people who are being used by that policy.

      To be fair, these sorts of objections often start targeting the beneficiaries of the policies, and at that point, it starts sounding racist or xenophobic.

      So, a political candidate who does not like the current immigration policies or enforcement because it harms his constituency, is not xenophobic.

      On the other hand, suggesting that they are all rapists or doing things that they are demonstrably NOT doing starts to move into the territory of xenophobia.

    19. Re:Not anti-immigrant by kheldan · · Score: 2

      His entire rant more or less screams 'I don't want brown people in my country!', and as such discredits and dishonors him.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    20. Re:Not anti-immigrant by jodido · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is the wrongest part of his manifesto. Immigration--that is, the free flow of labor across national boundaries--strengthens the working class by undercutting national and nationalist prejudices, and anything that strengthens the working class hastens the demise of capitalism. His point of view is that workers are not capable of making history, only being the objects of history. This is wrong--if you don't believe me go work in a sweatshop for a few years.

    21. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He states his reason as the following:

      The reason: I am no longer willing to support with my work the political system in Europe and Germany, of which the science system is part. There is no genuine democracy, and I disagree with almost all of the policies. In particular, I disagree with immigration policy. Immigration to my country harms me, it harms my family, it harms my people. Whoever invites or welcomes immigrants to Europe and Germany is my enemy. Immigration is the huge corporations' interest, not peoples' interest. I am not against helping refugees, but they would have to be kept strictly separated from us Europeans, for some limited time only until they return home, and not being integrated here as cheap workers and additional consumers. Immigration unnecessarily defers the collapse of capitalism, its final crisis. The earlier the system crashes, the more damage can be avoided. Possibly a civil war in Europe. Not to mention the loss of our European genetic and cultural heritage.

      So, considering his concern for the loss of "European genetic and cultural heritage", I think it is safe to say there is some racism involved.

    22. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Nutria · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How in the hell does cheap foreign labor taking someone else's job undercut national and nationalist prejudices? That's just... silly.

      The free flow of labor across national boundaries is *always* from cheap to expensive, thus undercutting the wages of the existing working class. That does nothing but piss off the existing working class, making them *more* nationalistic, not less.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    23. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      So, hopping the border without going through customs isn't illegal in your country? Damn, that sounds like a security nightmare.

      Illegal immigrants in the US are people who either:

      1. Come over the border illegally to persue work
      2. Overstay tourist visas and remain in the US illegally
      3. Overstay other types of visas and remain in the US

      There is a reason that these things are considered a crime. There are reasons that different visas have different terms, a tourist visa is a visa for someone visiting a country, it doesn't give you permission to move in, or to work. Illegal border crossing also jeopardizes a country because there is nothing preventing criminals, terrorists, or anyone who means harm to your country from entering this way, this is why it is illegal.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    24. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you note, legitimate* asylum seekers are not "by definition criminals." However they are also not "illegal immigrants." The fact that they are granted asylum means they went through proper channels and are in the country legally, so SuperKendall is not being contradicted in any way by your posting.

      *This does raise the question of what is a legitimate asylum seeker. There are technical guidelines if you want to look them up and it's all very complicated, to the point where there are sometimes in depth and controversial court cases about it. The fact that it's complicated does not preclude the fact that the underlying premise of your posting is not true.

    25. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How can these immigrants be ILLEGAL

      FYI, at the moment there are too many refugees to even register them all when they cross border(s). So technically their legal status in the EU _is_ questionable.

      Other than this technicality, which is not the immigrants' fault but a failure of the EU states, the majority of the immigrants are definitely not criminals.

    26. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are the majority of people in this wave criminals? Where in the world did you get that information other than your own bias? The UN seems to disagree with you.

      Don't (intentionally?) misrepresent what SuperKendall is saying. Ironically you are doing the exact same thing he/she is saying modern news reporting is doing, that is (intentionally?) conflating legal and illegal immigration.

      SuperKendall is saying "legal immigration is different than illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is by definition against the law, so people who do it are criminals. There is a clear problem with accepting a large wave of criminals (who broke immigration laws) into the country."

      So to answer your direct question, are the majority of people in "this wave" illegal immigrants? If so, then yes they are criminals. They may or may not be benign crimes, but they are still breaking the law.

    27. Re:Not anti-immigrant by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      It harms him by having to pay more taxes to feed and care for them

      In the short term, maybe. How about the long term? Did you take two seconds to think about long term problems.

      and it hurts his family and kids when the jobs that are available start paying lower wages due to the large influx of jobless economic migrants.

      Did you just contradict yourself? If immigrants get jobs then how is he paying more taxes to feed them if they have jobs?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    28. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      He is against countries that are "too immigration friendly", so he's against legal immigration. Basically, he wants less immigration to be legal - and those who disagree can go and write their own software.

    29. Re:Not anti-immigrant by The_Noosphere · · Score: 1

      Pure German supremacy... Almost 80 years ago they had some similar issues with other immigrants, the Jewish.

    30. Re:Not anti-immigrant by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like this guy has simply gone a bit bonkers. It's very common for people with real or perceived personal problems to find an external scapegoat, exaggerate problems with other people, politics, or economy, and generally get a distorted world view.

    31. Re:Not anti-immigrant by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      This is what he said:

      If you can't understand why someone who does not want people who are by definition criminals entering the country in large numbers, then heaven help you - because reality certainly will not and history just laughs at you.

      Ironically you are doing the exact same thing he/she is saying modern news reporting is doing, that is (intentionally?) conflating legal and illegal immigration.

      If they are being allowed in by the countries above, how are they criminals, again? Logic?

      SuperKendall is saying "legal immigration is different than illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is by definition against the law, so people who do it are criminals. There is a clear problem with accepting a large wave of criminals (who broke immigration laws) into the country."

      AGAIN, the countries are letting them in. They are granting them refugee status. They are finding them homes and jobs. In short, the only people that are calling them criminals are people like you. If a store owner decides not to charge you for items in his shop, are you a thief?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    32. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because his entire family only makes this software and they live in a bubble where everyone else who gets affected by this massive immigration influx doesn't in turn affect him or his family...

      Does that sound right to you? I wonder how you have managed to get this far in life only being able to see 3 feet in front of yourself.
      Try thinking Big Picture, or just leave that to the people that have a brain.

      I moved to Germany about 3 years ago. I've already seen an increase in crime in my neighborhood, and had to flash a weapon at a group of refugees, (all men), that tried surrounded me when I turned a corner walking back from the store at night.

      I'll be happier when they've gone back to their own country. They bring too many bad habits with them.

    33. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Faust6 · · Score: 2

      Refugees aren't illegal immigrants.

    34. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand economics in the EU at all, please STFU. I live there.

      ALL REFUGEES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WORK UNTIL THEIR STATUS IS CHANGED IN GERMANY. IE GRANTED ASYLUM.

      THAT IS USUALLY BETWEEN 2-3 YEARS.

      WTF is Germany supposed to do with that many unskilled laborers anyways?

    35. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send all the refugees to Israel. Lets see if they take them instead of having Jewish run corporate interests, human rights groups, and mass media telling everyone else to take them.

    36. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I can do this because Treefinder is my own property.

      Perfect example why Intelectual Property is a non-viable concept. If we could ask an example of wrongdoing deriving from such aberration, it would be hard to make up a better case.

      It's not his. You cannot recover the arrow spent, the spoken word... he's a jerk.

      If I were German, I'd petition for him to be stripped down from his nationality, so that he would become a refugee, too. And let's see what nice words he would have about his new situation. I don't know how, after the things they did in WW II, how do they tolerate such manifestations.

      It's Lebensraum all over again... and he's actually mad at Germany because the country is being humane. Can be a person be more shitty than this?

      Ah, the only viable answer is doing a free software alternative -- which is perhaps hard -- and give this idiot the gift of being ignored (but not forgotten! He has no right to be forgotten... instead we have the right to remember him for the acting like an idiot).

      We are on the verge of great migration movements, not only because of wars, but as has been seen lately because of tornados, volcanos, tsunamis, earthquakes and all sorts of problems. Also, no country must retain all immigrants -- if they only enable people to move they will find another place to live.

      I'm part Neanderthal because someone went out of Africa and met someone in Europe. Gipsies left Asia, Jews live a tranquil life in so many countries (sadly, just not in Palestine) etc. etc.

      I bet he would have another view if it would be him knocking at someone's door to ask a piece of old bread.

      Can we call ourselves Christians anymore?

    37. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Did you just contradict yourself? If immigrants get jobs then how is he paying more taxes to feed them if they have jobs?

      Because the wages have been driven down enough that the jobs are not enough to support the family. They're in poverty even though they have a job.

    38. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      He states his reason as the following:

      So, considering his concern for the loss of "European genetic and cultural heritage", I think it is safe to say there is some racism involved.

      Or he likes his culture and his country and he'd like to see it remain the way it is. It's nationalistic, but not necessarily racist.

    39. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is "by definition" a criminal, unless found guilty by a court.

      Presumption of innocence is a basic principle of the rule of law.

    40. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should add, "by a court of adequate authority, through fair legal procedure".

      Still, nobody is BY DEFINITION a criminal, no matter how you twist the definition of definition.

    41. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False. "Illegal immigrant" is just Newspeak for refugee. The label is a conservative dog whistle that has no place in serious reporting.

    42. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moron, could you possibly get your head out of your ass before smearing your identity politics shit all over the bathroom wall? He originally turned against the immigration policies of German when he was a university college instructor. However, he quit because the pay was insufficient to support his family. He then looked at what other teachers were earning in other countries and wondered why the pay was so low in Germany. Turns out Germany allows a lot of non-citizen immigrants to hold university positions who get paid peanuts which has the effect of driving down wages for native German teachers. Kinda like how H-1B workers are driving down wages for US IT workers, if not outright replacing them. That's what he meant about immigrants harming him and his family. It's all right there on his website.

    43. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't blame him for going "a bit bonkers", since it's the refugees who have gone bonkers in a big way, and they are the ones who have real personal problems.

    44. Re:Not anti-immigrant by tsotha · · Score: 1
      except in the U.S., immigration laws are considered civil, not criminal, matters. persons here without immigration authorization are not criminals, by the actual definitions used in the law.

      No, this is not true. You can be arrested for entering the country illegally. It's a criminal offense. As is overstaying your visa.

    45. Re:Not anti-immigrant by fightinfilipino · · Score: 1

      except in the U.S., immigration laws are considered civil, not criminal, matters. persons here without immigration authorization are not criminals, by the actual definitions used in the law.

      No, this is not true. You can be arrested for entering the country illegally. It's a criminal offense. As is overstaying your visa.

      look at the Immigration and Nationality Act. also look at the Code of Federal Regulations. these are civil provisions. yes, you can be detained, but the law is quite clear on the subject: it's not a criminal violation.

    46. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And these people aren't refugees. Either because they were free from the war after the first got out of Syria (eg. made it to Turkey), or because the majority of them weren't even from Syria in the first place.

    47. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your simplistic view of the issue saddens me. I am sad because I see that stupidity and globalist brainwashing is rampant and is only getting worse.

    48. Re:Not anti-immigrant by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Being present in the country is a civil offense. But entering the country illegally is a criminal offense. This is in Title 8, Section 1325 (U.S.C). You can go to jail for six months and pay a fine for the first attempt, and the penalties go up each time you get caught. If you enter the country illegally after being deported for a crime you can get a twenty year prison sentence just for the attempt.

    49. Re:Not anti-immigrant by KGIII · · Score: 1

      WTF is Germany supposed to do with that many unskilled laborers anyways?

      Send them to work at VW? 'Snot like it's gonna make the output any worse.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    50. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the Jews never instigate anything, do they?

    51. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't people come up with a positive solution? Yes, free flow of labor depresses wages of the working class in rich countries, but this negative effect can be balanced by free flow of something else in the opposite direction. The problem I see is that all political factions want borders to be semi-transparent (like cell membranes that filter different molecules in and out). Domestic businesses want cheap labor in the US, outsourced businesses want to prevent cheap labor from fleeing from Mexico, - it's impossible to have it both ways.

      I think that abolishing custom tariffs and sales taxes on items bought outside the state's jurisdiction would be a good start. (If GM builds a car in Mexico and I buy that car in Mexico and bring it to the US myself, what business is it of the American government?)

    52. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they won't. They're intelligent. They know it would lead to the destruction of their national identity and culture in Israel. Yet if anyone else tries to preserve theirs in their home countries, they start screaming xenophobic racist.

    53. Re:Not anti-immigrant by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Can be a person be more shitty than this?

      Yes. Look at the situation where these people are running from. Indeed, a person can be much shittier than that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    54. Re:Not anti-immigrant by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I believe that if they return within ten years it is a criminal offense.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    55. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      No, regardless of any of the other stuff you bring up, he's still xenophobic and racist. If you can't see the line between advocating political change, and trying to oppress people who different political views than you, then you might also be xenophobic and racist.

      Consider: you're jumping through substantial logical hoops to defend his xenophobic position, but he was actually not trying to oppress the migrants he's racist and xenophobic towards. He was actually trying to oppress all scientists from countries that disagree with his political stance about refugees. It doesn't matter what the details of his complaints are, or what the situation in the US with a certain visa category is. He was trying to punish scientists based on what country they're from, in order to punish them for being from countries whose politics offend him. There is no way for that not to be racist and xenophobic. On multiple fronts, if you think about it.

      He isn't just xenophobic and racist, but so extremely so that he is lashing out in a illogical manner that can only harm him and make his cause look worse. There is a nazi uprising brewing in Germany.

    56. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      If a store owner decides not to charge you for items in his shop, are you a thief?

      If he's German, I'm starting to think I should ask for a receipt in case he changes his mind right after I walk out the door.

    57. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The Jews had been around since before writing got up there, because they were already Christian and in that era the Christians weren't allowed to charge interest. Therefore, they could not make money off of loans. Therefore, other people, non-Christians, were present in every Christian city in order to provide banking services to the noble classes. Generally speaking, the choices were Jews or Pagans, and pagans were generally subject to execution on a whim and not really a good choice for banking services.

      Much of the Magna Carta is covering the rights of Jews. That was important to the nobles, because they couldn't support their economies without them; a bad neighboring noble who persecuted Jews and gave your region a bad name could put your people in starvation.

    58. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not Christian. You're a Jew posing as one while you spread your blatantly obvious propaganda.

    59. Re:Not anti-immigrant by StillAnonymous · · Score: 1

      there is no such thing as "illegal" immigration

      From http://migration.ucdavis.edu/m...

      "The December 1999 immigration law, according to the Popular Party, was making Spain a destination for illegal immigrants because it offered them K-12 education and medical care on the same basis as Spaniards, as well as political rights such as the right to hold demonstrations and join unions. The Spanish government, in seeking to amend the law, said "no country in the world … offers such rights" to unauthorized migrants, and noted that 6,958 foreigners were apprehended trying to enter southern Spain in the first seven months of 2000, compared to 5,492 in all of 1999."

      So Spain definitely had "illegal" immigration. Did they just up and remove all immigration law recently then? Or did they just rename it?

    60. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For people like you, yes, surely I'm a Jew, no problem.

      And a Muslim, and a Native Indian, and a Syrian, and an African... as long as it's about a human who wants to live peacefully, he/she shall have a brother in me. Because they're really my brothers: 99% equal DNA etc.

      So, if you want to call that some kind of propaganda, yeah, I'm on this boat, pal. I'm out to make minorities have their place under the Sun. Sorry if I don't care about you and your Political agenda (not sorry, really, sorry!).

    61. Re:Not anti-immigrant by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The most egregious yet prevalent error in modern news reporting, is to conflate someone being against ILLEGAL immigration with someone being against LEGAL immigration.

      The problem is that we have huge numbers of people fleeing to EU for various reasons when it's already shaky from economic mismanagement and the resulting fascist resurgence. Paperwork seems irrelevant to the issue.

      by definition criminals

      Chewing bubblegum is illegal in Singapore. Doesn't mean someone caught doing it there is a criminal, at least in any sense of the word that should mean anything to anyone lucky enough to be born elsewhere.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    62. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your shithead view of people in general saddens me because you're just one more fucking jackass that in general treats other human beings like dogshit, and in the process cheapens the entire human race that much more. Please have yourself fixed so you neither pass on your defective genes nor your defective attitudes to another generation, we don't need your shit. Better yet just kill yourself, you'll do the world more good as fertilizer.

    63. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes they are. Is your memory so short to remember the illegal africans that were in Callais, and the situation got so bad and it was so obvious by their skin colour they were not Syrians, that nowadays is not PC to have news about them?

    64. Re:Not anti-immigrant by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Xenophobes are rarely logical. Germany desperately needs hundreds of thousands of immigrants just to support the ageing population, yet this guy seems to think they're hurting him (and his family, etc.). That speaks volumes to just how much of this issue he doesn't understand. Germany - and him and his family - need these immigrants. This is demonstrable fact, and not a surprise to anyone who's spent any time trying to understand what's going on.

    65. Re:Not anti-immigrant by dave420 · · Score: 2

      They are not unskilled, and Germany has the best work training programmes in the entire world. You'd know this if your purported expertise was in any way factual.

      Germany's population is getting older. It needs hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year just to maintain it. Hundreds of thousands of people, including a large amount of well-trained (university educated) people can be a gift to Germany if handled correctly. Right now it's the xenophobes who are hurting Germany more.

    66. Re:Not anti-immigrant by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I notice you just attacked all the refugees with absolutely nothing of substance, in a vain attempt to protect an obvious xenophobe from criticism. You might want to work on your argument. "Gone bonkers"? "Real personal problems"? Are you 11?

    67. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not with genuine refugees asking asylum. The vast majority of the new immigrants don't even come from dangerous regions. Many of them can't even answer simple questions like what is your name, where do you come from, what do you expect we can do for you... Many have exactly the same story. They were forced to fight, but their brother got killed and they had flee to Europe to save their lives. Time and time again. Is it ok to import thousands of trained soldiers who in fact left their army. What happens to our soldiers when they take to opportunity to flee whenever they are in a war?

      And these guys aren't even fighting a war in a foreign country. They are fighting a war against foreign invaders to protect their land and families, yet they prefer to flee and seek economic prosperity in the form of a free house and a rather large check (relative to what they earn) and just leave the family behind.

      Are those people trustworthy especially when you see that they have high demands, like not being commanded by woman, freedom of use for products like woman, their own food prepared by their religious laws, their own mosques. But when asked to learn the language, than it's 'oh no, that's not what I want to do'.

    68. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you just contradict yourself? If immigrants get jobs then how is he paying more taxes to feed them if they have jobs?

      You must be living far way from Europe and not knowing anything about what is going here. Before they contribute to the society they need to learn the language (some of them also need to learn how to read and write), and some useful skills. It takes time and taxpayers money. Considering an average family size of an average immigrant, even a double income will not cover all expenses. Therefore, the social benefits must be applied (again taxpayers money). Is is not about being xenophobic it is about being rational.

    69. Re:Not anti-immigrant by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      I'm not blaming him for anything, I'm just saying that his rants about the imminent collapse of capitalist society and various other cue phrases more likely indicate a distorted world view and possibly some mental health problems rather than sound judgements that are rooted in reality. This has nothing to do with the political views he's trying to advertise, it's about the way he expresses them, which has the letters 'cranky scientist about to go mad' written all over. You must be new to the Internet if you haven't seen these telltale signs yourself.

      My advice to guys like him is to take it easy.

    70. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're misunderstanding the debate in Europe and the problem behind it. The vast majority of the current refugees are LEGAL immigrants, because they are admissible refugees according to the Geneva Convention and, in case of Germany, also refugees in the sense of the constitution (Grundgesetz). There is no doubt about that. Syria is a country at war and both ISIS and the Assad regime persecutes civilians on a massive scale. The fact that some countries have not acknowledged the Schengen treaties is a legal matter between those countries and other countries, it does not affect the status of an individual as a refugee.

      To "turn" these refugees into illegal immigrants, a country like Germany would have to:

      1. change the European constitution and some European laws,

      2."unsign" the Geneva Convention (if that is even possible), and

      3. change their own constitution

      Some people in Germany don't get this. They apparently think that the constitutionally warranted right to asylum should only be applied whenever it is convenient and cheap.

    71. Re:Not anti-immigrant by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If immigrants are granted asylum as refugees, how are they "by definition criminals"?

      I assume OP meant that, if you enter a country illegally, you have committed a crime. So even if you are a genuine refugee you are a criminal. This seems unhelpful, and is not even technically correct, as it is perfectly possible to enter a country on holiday and then claim asylum there.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    72. Re:Not anti-immigrant by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Chewing bubblegum is illegal in Singapore. Doesn't mean someone caught doing it there is a criminal

      Yes, it does.

      You're confusing legality with morality.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    73. Re:Not anti-immigrant by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      You must be living far way from Europe and not knowing anything about what is going here. Before they contribute to the society they need to learn the language (some of them also need to learn how to read and write), and some useful skills. It takes time and taxpayers money. Considering an average family size of an average immigrant, even a double income will not cover all expenses. Therefore, the social benefits must be applied (again taxpayers money). Is is not about being xenophobic it is about being rational

      I don't disagree that it will be a burden on the countries in the short term. However in the long term it fulfills many of these countries' population problems.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    74. Re:Not anti-immigrant by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Or he likes his culture and his country and he'd like to see it remain the way it is. It's nationalistic, but not necessarily racist.

      I don't know of any European country that has ONE culture. Take for example Spain: Castilia is not Basque is not Catalonia. Germany: Eastern Germany is not Western Germany. So when he says something like that, I am reminded of members of the Ku Klux Klan and how they want to keep American to traditional white roots. Bear in mind they are talking about a country founded by immigrants who displaced the natives that lived there.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    75. Re:Not anti-immigrant by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Chewing bubblegum is illegal in Singapore. Doesn't mean someone caught doing it there is a criminal

      Yes, it does.

      Certainly. However, I wrote (emphasis added):

      Doesn't mean someone caught doing it there is a criminal, at least in any sense of the word that should mean anything to anyone lucky enough to be born elsewhere.

      You're confusing legality with morality.

      No, SuperKendall is. The post I was answering to wrote:

      If you can't understand why someone who does not want people who are by definition criminals entering the country in large numbers, then heaven help you - because reality certainly will not and history just laughs at you.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    76. Re:Not anti-immigrant by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Because the wages have been driven down enough that the jobs are not enough to support the family. They're in poverty even though they have a job.

      And you know that how? Or is that a conclusion you just made up?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    77. Re:Not anti-immigrant by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      From what I know of history of Jews in Europe was that anti-semitic policies actually led to the wealth and power in some communities. As they were not allowed in many tradeskills (and their unions) like carpentry and masonry in Europe, Jews had to become merchants and bankers.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    78. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Sounds like what you "know" about "history" is nazi propaganda.

    79. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    80. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    81. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    82. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      The current federal minimum wage would give a full-time worker about $15k / year. A two-person household's poverty level is $16k, according to politifact's figuring. That's the federal government's stated income level, but I can't think of too many places in this country where that will even pay for rent, and if you're in a big city, you're either homeless, have a two-hour commute, or making well well above minimum wage.

      When indexed to inflation, the minimum wage has fallen by nearly 10% since the 60s.

    83. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't understand how you cannot see what is happening to your nation. You simply can't let in millions of people that have no interest in being German and be able to maintain your German identity. It's national suicide. It has nothing to do with race. It's about your civilization and way of life. They have no interest in it. They just want your resources.

      Seriously? Are all these people lying? https://www.google.com/search?q=immegration+problems+in+germany

    84. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Or he likes his culture and his country and he'd like to see it remain the way it is. It's nationalistic, but not necessarily racist.

      I don't know of any European country that has ONE culture. Take for example Spain: Castilia is not Basque is not Catalonia. Germany: Eastern Germany is not Western Germany. So when he says something like that, I am reminded of members of the Ku Klux Klan and how they want to keep American to traditional white roots. Bear in mind they are talking about a country founded by immigrants who displaced the natives that lived there.

      I'm thinking a little more of countries like France, which are very protective of "French culture," and the French Language in particular. I mean, they're not exactly unified/homogenized even there, but it's a strong current that runs through society.

    85. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try living in a formerly White town that has gone Mexican, and then talk about how you want more Brown people in your country. Idiot.

    86. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Baki · · Score: 1

      There have been analyses of the economic impact: even if these refugees are relatively well trained, the net impact on the economy is deemed to be strongly negative. The majority likely will never find work, and those with good training have a bad match to the needs of the german market.

      Yes there are some (demographic) benefits, but these are by far outweighed by the economic drawbacks.

    87. Re:Not anti-immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you didn't have an irrational hatred of 'brown people' to start with then your whole issue of 'living in a formerly White town that has gone Mexican' wouldn't even be an issue. How about you try judging people on a person-by-person basis, based on their track record, and starting them off with a base level of respect, instead of saying 'all brown people are bad', and maybe your life will be more enjoyable and less filled with pointless, baseless hate? Your preconceived notions about people who are different than you are poisoning you, friend; why are you poisoning yourself?

  7. Is it even possible? by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is it even possible to retroactively change the terms of a software license like that?
    Or did the new license only apply to new versions of the software?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Is it even possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There might be an argument for equitable/promissory estoppel here, but you'd better consult an attorney if you really need to know.

    2. Re:Is it even possible? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Most licenses and EULAs that I've actually read contain verbiage that says something on the order of "License holder retains the right to revoke this license at any time," though I can't say if this one did.

    3. Re:Is it even possible? by RDW · · Score: 2

      Is it even possible to retroactively change the terms of a software license like that?
      Or did the new license only apply to new versions of the software?

      Even before he went completely off the rails, the author had this weird thing where the user had to click to agree with the CURRENT version of the licence (which he could change at any time) every time the package was run, or else create a text file in a specified format (which the software would check on startup) where they promised always to abide by the latest licence and basically be his bitch. Whether this sort of nonsense is actually legal is another thing, of course.

  8. Re:The strings are his to attach by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I spent 3 years in Germany while in the US air force. While I found the German people to be very friendly for the most part I did notice a decided antipathy towards foreign immigrants from Turkey. It sort of surprised me but then I thought about it and it pretty much paralleled how many people in the US act towards Mexican immigrants.

  9. Re:Easy to explain by OhPlz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What's the point of having a policy and then not following it?

    They could treat the policy like some countries are treating their immigration laws.

  10. German laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    German laws criminalize hate speech. This is attempting to incite a backlash against immigrants. Why isn't it being punished for the hate speech it is? Why is this developer permitted to do this if he's residing in Germany?

    1. Re:German laws by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe that even the most broad interpretation of "hate speech" would cover this. Maybe if the guy came out and said "I hate all Muslims!" you could make that case. But you can't criminalize someone for criticizing a government policy decision, whatever you think their motivation might be. If you've gone that far down the rabbit hole, you've definitely created a totalitarian state.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:German laws by mi · · Score: 1

      This is attempting to incite a backlash against immigrants.

      Does it?

      Why isn't it being punished for the hate speech it is?

      Because, if your interpretation of the "hate speech" laws were taken, then any speech, that offends anybody, can be classified as "hateful" and thus illegal.

      It is for this reason, I might add, America's Founding Fathers have been aghast at the idea of criminalizing any speech. For example::

      I request all who are angry with me on the Account of printing things they don’t like, calmly to consider these following Particulars

      1. That the Opinions of Men are almost as various as their Faces, an Observation general enough to become a common Proverb: So many Men, so many Minds.
      2. That the Business of Printing has chiefly to do with Men’s Opinions, most things that are printed tending to promote some, or oppose others.
      3. That hence arises the peculiar Unhappiness of that Business, which other Callings are no way liable to, they who follow Printing being scarce able to do anything in their way of getting a Living which shall not probably give Offense to some, and perhaps to many
      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:German laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The opinions of the US founding fathers have no relevance to German laws.

    4. Re:German laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hey, Germany should reverse it's immigration policies" Hate speech or not? (Hint: only morons would claim its the former)

    5. Re:German laws by StillAnonymous · · Score: 1

      When formerly free countries started passing hate speech laws, I knew it was the beginning of the end. Right now you can see the far-left using censorship and hate speech laws to silence every one of their critics, rather than debate an issue with reason and logic. They will continue to expand the definition in order to include anything they don't like. Hurt someone's feelings? Hate speech.

      Wars fought for the freedoms we have, and totalitarians just throw them away when it suits them. Tragic.

  11. Re:Easy to explain by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    How is this action wrong? If you violate the policy for having your paper published it then gets retracted.

  12. The immigration problem in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:The immigration problem in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a regular user on this site, I was about to post the same Youtube video anonymously too.

      Most of the first migrants to come to our country over the past few decades were the richest, bravest, and most intelligent. Now however, we're getting a flood of third worlders, and as a result, the crime rate is going up whilst the economy will go down. It's an invasion in slow motion.

      Sweden's got it worse than even us, as people can barely speak out over there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    2. Re:The immigration problem in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck does this racist bullshit get voted so high?

    3. Re:The immigration problem in question by dywolf · · Score: 2

      Pure utter BS that should get you smacked upside the head with a reality stick, instead of modded up.

      The 'richest, bravest, intelligent', as if they are somehow more worthy, and were less desperate for an improvement in circumstances, even though that's the primary motivation in migration. This is simply racism, claiming that current migrants are somehow inferior and different from previous ones.

      No the crime rate isnt going up; migrants almost always have lower crime rates than the native population.
      No the economy doesn't go down; rather they almost always lead to growth in economic activity, because the economy isn't a zero-sum game, and they need goods and services and jobs just like everyone else.

      This is simply the same BS nativist bigotry that accompanies EVERY wave of migration, and its just as wrong now as it has been every time in the past, whether it was directed at the Chinese, Irish, Italians, Vietnamese, Japanese, Polish, or now Hispanics.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    4. Re:The immigration problem in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This video contains content from [Merlin] IDOL, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.

      Sorry about that.

    5. Re:The immigration problem in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the same AC as before.

      50% of Muslim men and 75% of Muslim women in the UK don't have jobs. Even within a culture/race, there are massive differences in attributes such as IQ, speed or stamina. What makes you think cultures who have evolved somewhat independently are immune to the effects of evolution where traits such as these can easily diverge?

      Ghettos and no-go zones are springing up all over the place thanks to this invasion. And you're the one trying to say I'm mistaken?

    6. Re:The immigration problem in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:The immigration problem in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are waking up.

  13. Not open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is why scientific software should to be open source.

    1. Re:Not open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to developer, it is opensource, you just have to pay to get a copy.

  14. A discussion about this without virtue signaling by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    It would be wonderful if, on an internet forum, we could have a discussion about a topic such as this without virtue signaling. For whatever reason, it seems impossible.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  15. Re:Easy to explain by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

    The real question here is who is being more immature, the researcher or the publisher.

    The researcher has decided to act like a childish asshole.

    The publisher has said "unfortunately, due to your stupid manifesto we can no longer carry this paper because it violates our policy".

    This guy is perfectly allowed to go all crazy and issue his manifesto of "you can't use my stuff". That doesn't mean that other entities are required to keep hosting his stuff.

    The publisher is following a policy, and the people who wrote the paper agree.

    This breaches the journalâ(TM)s editorial policy on software availability [2] which has been in effect since the time of publication. The other authors of the article, Arndt von Haeseler and Korbinian Strimmer, have no control over the licensing of the software and support the retraction of this article.

    So, really, the only one acting immature is the childish idiot who has decided he's taking his ball and going home, and making up random rules about who can use his software.

    But he can own that decision and the consequences.

    This isn't two wrongs making a right, this is an idiot living with the real world consequences of being an idiot.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  16. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they stealin' yur jerbs?

  17. Licenses that forbid redistribution by tepples · · Score: 1

    Is it even possible to retroactively change the terms of a software license like that?

    It is if the license requires users to obtain a copy of the software directly from the publisher, not from a redistributor.

    1. Re:Licenses that forbid redistribution by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I can see it for new copies he gives out, but.....
      What about the copies he's already given? Can he change the terms of those copies?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Licenses that forbid redistribution by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Corporations apparently can, and do it all the time.

      Many of us disagree you should be able to change the terms of a license retroactively or at all.

      But since corporations have apparently bought the right to do it, why not crazy idiots?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Licenses that forbid redistribution by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      But since corporations have apparently bought the right to do it, why not crazy idiots?

      Sorry, no license term changes allowed without a receipt.

    4. Re:Licenses that forbid redistribution by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Many licenses have some conditions for termination. This one may have had a provision that the licensor could cancel the license for any reason, for all I know.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  18. License Revocation clauses are common. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    License Revocation clauses are common.
    Just ask Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Adobe, Google, HP, AT&T, Verizon, ....

    "we may revoke your license to use the software at any time for any reason" is a common wording.

  19. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is two groups: Gangolf Jobb and the editors of BMC Evolutionary Biology fully exercising their rights.

    Gangolf Jobb has every right to license his software in any way he sees fit.

    The editors of BMC Evolutionary Biology have every right to set the publication policy for their journal.

    Everyone has a right to look like an ass in public.

    And nothing of value was lost. Just use ape.

  20. From the scientist's website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Immigration is the huge corporations' interest, not peoples' interest. I am not against helping refugees, but they would have to be kept strictly separated from us Europeans, for some limited time only until they return home, and not being integrated here as cheap workers and additional consumers. Immigration unnecessarily defers the collapse of capitalism, its final crisis. The earlier the system crashes, the more damage can be avoided. Possibly a civil war in Europe." - http://treefinder.de/

    Certainly didn't expect his goal to hasten the fall of capitalism to be his justification.

    1. Re:From the scientist's website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some people recognize immigrant has become synonymous with "slave" or "underclass", depending on the culture.

      When the US Republicans talk about needing to compete in the global economy and how the US is strangling business, they aren't talking about the EU powerhouses which have higher business and social taxes. They are talking about the industrializing asian nations with penny wages and how the US needs to compete with them (ostensibly via the immigrant workforce). Many western nations have a similar problem and solution, where cheap labor/immigrants are available. Morality aside, at least he's bringing up the topic.

    2. Re:From the scientist's website by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      He believes that cheap labor is simply allowing capitalism to continue down the same path of exploitation of labor and not have to accept that they should pay a higher wage. This in turn keeps the population compliant and impoverished.

      By keeping immigrants out, you maintain a smaller pool of workers you must use for everything, and this can induce a shortage of labor which makes strikes more viable, and forces competition for the remaining laborers. Eventually, the workers have enough power to force changes which make their lives more comfortable, and then the workers gain control of the means of production and history ends in a worker's paradise.

      For all I know, such a policy may well cause the fall of capitalism in Germany, but unless the rest of the world is at about the same place, Germany is going to be precariously balanced behind it's protectionist walls. Eventually powerful insiders in Germany will get enough power to knock holes in those protections just for themselves, and then everyone else will cry foul, and it will all fall apart. That's how it usually goes, anyway.

      However, aside from the "genetic or cultural" things he's talking about, his argument is a valid policy position that you could make against any immigrant population. Of course, you can certainly argue that it is not best policy position possible.

    3. Re:From the scientist's website by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 2

      The fun bit is that there's no need for cheap foreigners to drive down wages in Germany. The unemployment benefits system is designed to take care of it.

      If you have worked enough in the last 3 years, you can get up to 12 months of full unemployment benefits depending on your age (60% of your previous salary without kids, 67% with kids). If you refuse a "reasonable job offer", you don't get the benefits for up to 12 weeks. Reasonable is defined as "up to 3 hours daily commute" and paying 80% of your previous salary if it's in the first quarter, then it goes down to 70%, then 60%. Refuse several "reasonable job offers" and you lose the benefits. At the end of the benefits period, you get switched to subsistence allowance: maximum of 399 per month if I am not too mistaken.

      I'm a non-German living in Germany for 9 years, crossing the border every day for better wages.

  21. Is anyone these days NOT outraged? by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    Might just be easier to ask it that way.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Is anyone these days NOT outraged? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I am outraged that you think I could possibly even think of being outraged.

  22. as an evolutionary biologist.... by nimbius · · Score: 5, Informative

    Treefinder has been dead for about a decade. If youre still using im surprised you have enough data from it to continue a grant proposal, but i hope you'll consider other more functional applications like PHYLIP PAUP MEGA Phylo_win ARB or DAMBE
    hybridization or recombination events got you down? concaterpillar to the rescue. http://rogerlab.biochemistryan...
    distance matrix analyses on nucleotide or protein sequences? seriously, get a copy of ODIN. while i couldnt get funding for a beefier desktop, i DID get compute time on our university supercomputer and ODIN absolutely screams on linux.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:as an evolutionary biologist.... by DrChandra · · Score: 0

      Has it really been dead that long? Maybe we should cut it open and count the rings.

      --
      Words, words, words ... Buz, buz! - Hamlet, Act II, Scene II
  23. Following policy by tepples · · Score: 1

    They could treat the policy like some countries are treating their immigration laws.

    They are, namely following them. The journal's publisher is following its policy of retracting papers that rely on unavailable software. And some countries are using their sovereign authority to grant asylum to those who qualify as refugees.

    1. Re:Following policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is people are thinking with their guts, not with their brains, Its even more disturbing coming from a German [a people that is taken as the epitome of rationality]. These folks understand that Germany is losing people [low fertility rates] at an alarming rate, right?

      That said, I also have serious restrictions to an unfettered Muslim migration to any non-Muslim region.

    2. Re:Following policy by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only interesting question here is whether this would be a controversy if it were happening in reverse - if the author was denying it to countries who are not taking in refugees.

    3. Re: Following policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Countries have sovereign authority. And constitutions that specify the guidelines on how to exercise said authority. Elected executives don't get to ignore said guidelines. They are not Kings.

    4. Re:Following policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure your assertion that Germans are people considered the epitome of rationality is correct. They certainly have done some rather irrational things in the past, particularly in the 1930s and early-to-mid 1940s.

    5. Re: Following policy by tepples · · Score: 1

      Countries have sovereign authority. And constitutions that specify the guidelines on how to exercise said authority. Elected executives don't get to ignore said guidelines. They are not Kings.

      I agree. If these guidelines give authority to the country's legislature and immigration agency to accept these refugees, there's no problem. I'm not familiar with the laws of Europe, but for example, the United States Constitution gives Congress wide latitude "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization", and it delegates some of this rulemaking authority to the executive through the agency known as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS, formerly called INS).

      However, there appears to be an implicit accusation in your post that some executives are acting outside the law as if they do "get to ignore said guidelines". To which constitutional provisions of which countries do you refer?

    6. Re:Following policy by tepples · · Score: 1

      That said, I also have serious restrictions to an unfettered Muslim migration to any non-Muslim region.

      How so, unless immigrant parents physically force their children to practice Islam?

    7. Re:Following policy by tepples · · Score: 1

      I believe #50916535 was referring to present-day living Germans, not Germans who have since died of old age.

    8. Re:Following policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Muslim-born children could pick up a new religion, other than their parents [or father, more precisely], without being outcast. Maybe it is possible, though I really don't know.

    9. Re:Following policy by OhPlz · · Score: 2

      Isn't that usually how religion passes from one generation to another?

    10. Re:Following policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, but instead of good people being annoyed at a racist developer, racists would be raging at the civilized developer at just about every wingnut blog.

    11. Re:Following policy by khallow · · Score: 1

      You mean the ones ending their nuclear power without an exit plan? Or who got their citizens to subsidize electricity for German industry in the name of green energy? Their reputation for rationality may be warranted, but I'm not seeing it myself.

    12. Re:Following policy by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's an STD. I caught Buddhism from a dirty hippie chick from California.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:Following policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it wouldn't be. I know you're just posing the question you already know the answer to, but many people can't seem to grasp this dual-standard.

      There's an agenda at work here. That agenda is the one world government. Right now they're attempting to destroy white, Christian Europe by flooding it with the most incompatible immigrants they can find. Puppets of these globalists have been programmed with leftist rhetoric that makes them think they are helping by cheaply labeling opponents to it as "xenophobic" or even *gasp* "racist!", or sending leaflets to every poor country in Africa and the Middle-East that tell the people how to gain refugee status in Germany or other socialist-heavy Euro states. Once the national identities of the Euro countries is destroyed, the police state moves in, erases the borders, and takes complete control. If this is successful, repeat for other countries.

      Never mind that these people aren't even refugees by the time they reach Germany. A refugee is someone who flees their country to escape war or persecution. Once they reach a neighboring country where they are away from that danger, they are no longer refugees if they continue on. Yet look how far these people have traveled. They have headed straight for the countries that provide the most free shit.

      You want to equate these migrants to the immigrants of the past that helped form America? Fine, let's see how they do without all the free shit that those same US immigrants didn't get. My money's on them starving or freezing to death rather than working their way to prosperity.

    14. Re:Following policy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But Buddhism doesn't have the reputation of being aggressively hostile. Calvinism would be a better example.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    15. Re:Following policy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      An interesting question, but as posed I can't think of an ethical way to answer it based on anything beyond prejudice.

      The closest thing I can think of to an example is various examples of enforcement of the GPL, and that's not a very close example, as the enforcement is handled by different groups with different agendas. Also it's often quite difficult to prove violation. But Linux is run supporting both gay and homophobic sites, and hosts various applications for those purposes with splendid indifference to purposes. The only concern is whether any distributed binaries have the source code available. OTOH, that's all the license would allow them to enforce.

      P.S.: How legal is his retrospective change in the terms of his license? I suspect that he has no grounds whatsoever, but I've never used the code and perhaps it depends on access to some remote server.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    16. Re: Following policy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      AFAIKT, all executives are selective in the enforcement of the laws, and always have been. If nothing else they can cite prioritization of activity. You first enforce the laws you deem most important, and get around to the ones you deem less important as you have the time and energy.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    17. Re: Following policy by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      In the US, the President's attempt to halt deportations was just rejected by the courts.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com...

    18. Re: Following policy by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Budhism's reputation is better than its reality. In quite a few places, as I type this, budhists are engaged in genocude campaigns against other religions.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    19. Re:Following policy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Humans rational? Not on this planet.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re: Following policy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      As I have elsewhere asserted, religion seems to have a minimal influence on the violence of the adherent, with most of the influence being cultural. But Buddhism *does* have the reputation of being peaceful...which is interesting since most Samurai were Zen Buddhists...and a very large percentage of people who consider Buddhists to be peaceful both know that, and know that hand-to-hand martial art were developed by Buddhist monks.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    21. Re: Following policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that even mean? Genocide against a religion?

    22. Re: Following policy by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      It means attempting to eradicate a local culture which has a different religion. It's really not that complicated.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  24. Authorship and previous licenses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This software has been around since 2004... was it ever released under a standard open source license, or does the code include any derivative works from other programs or projects that were released under the GPL, etc.?

  25. Ignore the jackass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd keep using his software.

    What's he going to do about it? Make more noise? Sue?

    Bigotry wilts in the sunlight.

    1. Re:Ignore the jackass. by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      If the journal has a policy about software licensing, they need to follow it. It's not about this jackass, it's about remaining consistent, and presumably this policy should exist for pragmatic or ethical reasons that have nothing to do with the reasoning behind the licensing change.

      Although someone has asked whether the policy would be enforced if this guy was upset about immigrants *not* being let into countries. Or whatever the more popular policy position is, at the time.

      Would they retract if he refused to allow countries to use his software if they didn't accept AGW, for instance?

  26. Banned in the US since February by barlevg · · Score: 2

    License change and re-release in February 2015:

    Starting from 1st February 2015, I do no longer permit the usage of my TREEFINDER software in the USA. For all other countries, the old license agreement remains valid.

    http://www.treefinder.de/

    1. Re:Banned in the US since February by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      So what's the legality of retrospectively changing a licence? By all accounts all the people who agreed to the original license in the USA are still valid users of it today providing the service isn't subscription based.

  27. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the main reasons there are issues with migrants in Europe right now is the very fact that Germany declared itself a free for all with no way for those migrants to make it to Germany without forcing the countries in the migrants paths to break their own laws.

    I think the thing that is really going to bite Europe in the butt with this is the fact that if even 0.1% of those migrants are radicalized then Europe is going to end up with large numbers of terrorists in their midst. I would also bet its more then 0.1%

  28. Re:A discussion about this without virtue signalin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your accusation of virtue signalling is invading my safe space.

  29. Any other applications of this policy? by mi · · Score: 1

    breaches the journal's editorial policy on software availability

    I wonder, what — if any — other applications of this policy can be found. Has there ever been another case of this same publication withdrawing an already published article over "software availability"?

    I also wonder, if they'd have acted, if the license-changes were aimed not at immigration-supporters, but at, say, "Nazi-sympathizers" or "Global Warming-deniers"?

    My own license for a tiny open-source program bans owners of Che Guevara items from using it — would these distinguished editors find that offensive as well?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Any other applications of this policy? by sageres · · Score: 1

      OMG I would use it all the time! I hate those self-righteous young punks wearing 'Che' t-shirts!

    2. Re:Any other applications of this policy? by squiggleslash · · Score: 0
      The license change isn't aimed at immigration supporters, but people in countries with immigration policies he disapproves of. You can bet they would have taken the same action if, say, he'd banned usage of the software in countries that host concentration camps, or that have not signed onto the Kyoto protocol.


        • Slow Down Cowboy!


          Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.


          It's been 3 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment


          Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Any other applications of this policy? by mi · · Score: 1

      You can bet they would have taken the same action if, say, he'd banned usage of the software in countries that host concentration camps, or that have not signed onto the Kyoto protocol.

      Ok, can you cite a single example of this same policy applied before by this same publication? And if you find more than one such example at all, let's try to filter anything, which Che Guevara or Bernie Sanders would find disagreeable...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Any other applications of this policy? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Can you cite an example where the policy has not been applied in this manner? It is quite possible that something like this has never happened before. You are basically claiming that the policy is probably being applied unevenly. It was a nice try to obfuscate the claim by "only asking questions" but it didn't work. You made the claim it is up to you to prove the claim.

      My own license for a tiny open-source program bans owners of Che Guevara items from using it — would these distinguished editors find that offensive as well?

      Maybe, maybe not. The question is irrelevant anyway as the situation is different. The scientists that are not allowed to use the software have little or no influence on immigration policy. They would have complete control of the ownership of Che Guevara items. See the difference?

    5. Re:Any other applications of this policy? by mi · · Score: 1

      It was a nice try to obfuscate the claim by "only asking questions" but it didn't work.

      But it did work!

      You made the claim it is up to you to prove the claim.

      No, I did not make a claim of it having never happened. I merely expressed doubt, that it ever has. I don't have a big enough horse in this race to be troubled with my own investigations.

      See the difference?

      I see a distinction, but not a difference. Because the policy invoked is based, supposedly, on the software availability. Whether the software is unavailable because a person owns a Che Guevara T-shirt or because he lives in a country, that's too welcoming to immigrants, is of no account...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:Any other applications of this policy? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I merely expressed doubt, that it ever has.

      Again, making a passive claim.

      I don't have a big enough horse in this race to be troubled with my own investigations.

      But you feel entitled enough to ask others to disprove your claim. Why should others have to do your work?

      Whether the software is unavailable because a person owns a Che Guevara T-shirt or because he lives in a country, that's too welcoming to immigrants, is of no account...

      The difference is control. Scientists have control over there own action therefore by they have a choice whether or not to own a Che Guevara T-shirt and thereby whether or not to use your software. They do not have control over their countries' immigration policy therefore another body makes the decision whether or not they can use the software.

    7. Re:Any other applications of this policy? by mi · · Score: 1

      Why should others have to do your work?

      Because they want to prove me wrong...

      The difference is control.

      One way or the other, the software is "unavailable" and therefore any research made using it can not be published.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Any other applications of this policy? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Well, no I can't because I haven't heard of any cases where a piece of software has been banned from use in a country because of that country's political policies, until now. Even DeCSS, which is technically illegal in the US, was never banned from the US by its author (and has limited scientific purpose anyway, ie is unlikely to be published in a scientific paper.)

      The bit you appear to be missing is that they don't really have much of a choice here. The publication is under an undue burden if it has to comply with a license restricting it from doing certain business in countries it otherwise does business with. Withdrawing the paper is entirely correct and was almost certainly taken on legal grounds.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:Any other applications of this policy? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      One way or the other, the software is "unavailable" and therefore any research made using it can not be published.

      So there is no difference between people starving because they chose not to eat and them starving because someone else does not allow them to eat. In the end they are not eating. To me the difference is choice and control.

    10. Re:Any other applications of this policy? by mi · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard of any cases where a piece of software has been banned from use in a country because of that country's political policies

      Huh? A tonn of software — mostly having to do with encryption — can not (or at some point could not) be exported to places like Iran, for example. You "haven't heard" of it?!

      The publication is under an undue burden if it has to comply with a license restricting it from doing certain business in countries it otherwise does business with

      Not at all. The publication does not need to comply with the software's license, because it does not need to conduct the research. It is already completed research, which was published 11 years ago! People wishing to verify the study's results — reproducibility being a key of scientific method — can do so in another country.

      For example, there is a whole list of medical studies currently considered unethical or even illegal. They can not be recreated for this reason, but their but we can still read the results — as well as cite and discuss them.

      almost certainly taken on legal grounds

      Nope, by all appearances — including the "fuck this Nazi" reaction of many Slashdotters right here — it was political at least in part.

      Hence my question of whether this "software availability" policy has ever been applied before by the same publication.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  30. Re:The strings are his to attach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If you had to live around the Turks in Germany (and send your kids to school with them), you might be more sympathetic to why they're so disliked.

  31. Re:Easy to explain by OhPlz · · Score: 2

    Europe is facing that already. Look at what happened in Paris with Charlie Hebdo, then the wave of violence and terror related arrests throughout many countries in the region following those attacks. There's debate as to whether or not Germany is even obeying its laws, because a lot of these "refugees" don't really seem to meet the definition of the term. They're migrating for economic reasons, not necessarily because they fear for their lives. Germany is rejecting a significant number of them, but that just adds to the chaos.

  32. Re:The strings are his to attach by JackieBrown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It sort of surprised me but then I thought about it and it pretty much paralleled how many people in the US act towards Mexican immigrants.

    Legal or illegal Mexican immigrants? I live in San Antonio and we are extremely tolerant toward legal Mexican immigrants. The Mexican Americans are not please with the illegal ones due to the jobs and resources they lose/share. For the most part, they really look down on them.

    Besides organizations like LaRaza, most of the support for illegal Mexicans comes from white people - usually either due to reasons of "white guilt" or cheap labor.

  33. Re:After the initial controversy by bstag · · Score: 1

    Yes, kind of crazy the software helps study immigration of the past, but he does not think it should be happening now.

  34. EULA because fuck you by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    You'll use it like I tell you to use it, and when I decide I want to change how you use it you'll fucking change how you use it.

    Copyright, bitch. Death plus seventy years - all the way to your great-grandchildren.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  35. Free Speech by JBMcB · · Score: 0

    It's a phrase that's been beaten to death, but it applies here:
    "The correct response to speech you do not agree with is more speech, not censorship."

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is censoring anything. You are reading this story the way you want to read it, rather than the way it is.

      As an aside, when others decide they don't want to listen to what you are saying, that isn't censorship either.

    2. Re:Free Speech by bws111 · · Score: 1

      What censorship? The publication has a rule that the software must be available for papers about software, and the software is not available. Was it also 'censorship' when the paper linking vaccines to autism was retracted?

    3. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't stopping him from sharing the same information by any other means.

      If I advertise recommended tools on my website because they are good at some specific purpose and give information on how to use them for said purpose, am I forbidden from ever retracting a recommendation, even if those tools change so they are no longer useful for what I was originally recommending them for? Why should I, or some publisher, be forced to say something for someone else?

    4. Re:Free Speech by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I wonder how accurately that rule has been followed. If someone has the time and interest... (I do not.) I imagine that there were papers done back in the 1970s that utilized computers and specific software. Now, how much of that software is still available for use today? Have those papers been retracted?

      Not that I give a shit. I think the guy's an idiot. I just hate the idea that an innocent researcher is caught in the crossfire. (It wasn't his paper was it?)

      Hmm... Nope, it looks like it was his paper. Well, then, screw it. It's still be interesting to see if they've followed the rules elsewhere.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:Free Speech by RDW · · Score: 2

      It's a BMC journal, born in the Web age - it didn't exist in the 70s. But there may well be other software that's no longer available even in the lifetime of the journal just through link rot (which is why they encourage authors include a copy of the software and ideally the source as supplementary material).

    6. Re:Free Speech by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      They're confusing the right of the publication to speak for itself with the right of a rightwing blowhard to have the publication speak when told, so they cry "censorship! They didn't agree with me, I'm being censored!"

    7. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't help but feel you're conflating the two questions of whether something is an acceptable form of censorship or not, and whether something is censorship or not.

    8. Re:Free Speech by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      But the correct response to people violating a service's terms and conditions is also termination of the service.

      If the service were running an email service for YourCorp.com, and you violated the Ts & Cs by hosting a torrent server there, would you object to the service being withdrawn?

      The service here is publication and promotion of a piece of writing. The terms of service agreed to included that the software described remained available. The Ts and Cs have been violated. So the service (of publishing and promoting the writing) has been withdrawn.

      It's far from an ideal circumstance - perhaps a better response would be to have put the paper into the public domain with a big warning about "this software is dangerous" on the revised publication - but it doesn't seem disproportionate.

      Having a paper retracted after publication is seriously damaging to a scientist's reputation. It's probably the most serious action that the journal could take, and the reputational damage will last for the rest of the original writer's life.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    9. Re:Free Speech by Linkreincarnate · · Score: 1

      What if I told you both groups were guilty of censorship?

    10. Re:Free Speech by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you disagree with analysis by a plain, "what if I disagreed," don't be surprised if there is no response other than "you're wrong."

      No analysis means you didn't have any ideas to contribute, and probably didn't understand the issues.

      Me not repeating what you say is not me censoring you. It never is, it never was, it never will be. So you can make the bare assertion, but it won't have any value.

      A publication can't "censor" you unless they're doing something like suing you to stop your speech. Their speech is their speech. They can't be changing or limiting your speech by their own. Speech is additive, not subtractive. Whatever you said, you still said it. They literally can't censor you by including or not including your speech. That would require action other than the publication of their own choice words.

      A person might make a case that selective partial reproduction could be censorship, but that wouldn't apply here because it was completely withdrawn, not altered. They simply stopped repeating what he said, and announced that they no longer endorsed that speech.

  36. Treefinder license changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.treefinder.de/
    Original License

    TREEFINDER version of March 2011 and all earlier versions are free of charge for scientific purposes. For commercial or military use or integration into such software please contact the author.

      You may distribute this software non-commercially, provided that neither this manual nor any other components of the software are changed.

      The software and its accompanying documentation are provided "as is", without guarantee of any kind. Gangolf Jobb does not warrant, guarantee, or make any representations regarding the use or the results of the software or documentation in terms of their correctness, reliability, currentness or otherwise. In no case will Gangolf Jobb be liable for any special, incidental, consequential, or other damages that may result from the use of this software.

      Title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the software belong to Gangolf Jobb. The software is protected by international copyright treaties.

      This license agreement is valid until the next software release. Afterwards, the license of the latest TREEFINDER version applies.

      Copyright (C) 1997-2011 by Gangolf Jobb. All rights reserved.

    License change and re-release in February 2015:

    Starting from 1st February 2015, I do no longer permit the usage of my TREEFINDER software in the USA. For all other countries, the old license agreement remains valid.

    This is in accordance with the license agreement stated in the TREEFINDER manual since the earliest versions, which reserves me the right to change the license agreement at any time.

    My reasons:

    (1) I want to protest against American imperialism, which I regard as the cause of most of all evil in the world: wars, tyranny, poverty, migration.

    (2) I want to protest against EU tyranny, which is mostly the result of US imperialism.

    (3) I want to demonstrate my sovereignty, something I would welcome to see much more often in science and politics.

    In particular, I dislike that the USA and the EU aggressively promote a way of life that conflicts with my own way of life. I dislike the flood of immigrants they caused to come here - come here to replace unprofitable Europeans like me.

    After so many years of hard work on TREEFINDER, I have still not been paid any reward.

    I want to stress that this license change is not against my colleagues in the USA, but against a small rich elite there that misuses the country's power to rule the world.

    The USA is our worst enemy. I have collected many links to background information, including some in English language, here.

    Updated Oct 2105:

    Starting from 1st October 2015, I do no longer permit the usage of my TREEFINDER software in the following EU countries: Germany, Austria, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark - the countries that together host most of the non-european immigrants.

    1. Re:Treefinder license changes by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Yes, this guy is quite the nutter.

      My favorite part is the way he blames the US for Turkish and Pakistani immigrants to Germany.

  37. How is this politics or even news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He broke their policy, they acted accordingly. This is neither news nor politics.

  38. Well then there's this by slashmydots · · Score: 0

    What a bad summary. Refugee != immigration.

    1. Re:Well then there's this by halivar · · Score: 1

      The summary is correct. He is against all immigration, both refugee and otherwise.

  39. Re:The strings are his to attach by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

    Thing is, in the EU (as in, throughout the EU), the antipathy is a lot higher, and for good reason: As a general guideline, unemployment is usually a touch higher than in the US, and job growth is a touch lower (though in some countries this difference is rather dramatic), leading to a lot of antagonism.

    Recently, it's grown primarily because of the actions and crimes committed by a number of these migrants, as well as the increased strain on the far-more-generous social welfare systems of these countries (which as a corollary, appears to be leading to even higher taxation).

    If you think the Germans are vicious about it, you should take a gander at Nebelspalter (a Swiss parody magazine) and look up the opinions there on the subject...

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  40. Re: Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You clearly don't work in IT/IS/ or as a programmer.

  41. Re:Easy to explain by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Refugees should probably not just mean people who are migrating to a wealthier place to get on the dole.

  42. Fairly trivial software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The documentation suggests this software is fairly trivial. Presumably anyone still using it will set aside an afternoon and reimplement it?

    1. Re:Fairly trivial software? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Clearly you have not had to deal with software written by biologists. It doesn't matter how trivial it is, it is not going to be an afternoon...

      I've seen an awk script that did FASTA searches which, and I'm not making this up, used a subset of regular expressions for the searching and the bulk of the script converted those into strings to match with - completely ignoring that awk already does regular expressions better than they ever will... I'm so glad I don't have to deal with that particular collection of code anymore.

  43. Re: Easy to explain by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've seen plenty of them working. They harvest crops, work construction, pave roads or anything where they need cheap labor. If it weren't for the flood of people from South of the border I don't know how all this stuff would get done. We'd probably have to make all the people on welfare go back to work.

  44. Re: Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because you guys all wait in line for your welfare checks together?

  45. Re:The strings are his to attach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So extremely tolerant that it is now a major rhetorical issue even though illegal immigration is 1/4 of what it was a decade ago and illegal Mexican immigration has fallen by 1/2.

    But now suddenly the world is ending.

  46. Still septette circumstances and ideology by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If a person is pardoned, it does not mean that prior to the pardon they were not a criminal.

    There may be good reasons to pardon someone (or to grant asylum) but that is still a VERY different thing than supporting legal immigration which people traditionally apply for.

    You can still be even for a large increase of LEGAL immigration vs. any kind of amnesty for those willing to spend the effort or money to break into the country illegally.

    Of course you do realize supporting mostly amnesty instead of legal immigration is support for the privileged (who can pay tens of thousands in smuggling fees) or true criminals? You pretty much eliminate the middle class, unlike legal immigration which is much more even-handed in letting anyone apply.

    If you like furthering inequality there is no better way I can think of than supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Still septette circumstances and ideology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are creating a false dichotomy and clearing forgetting about how this country came to be. The Irish came to this country in much the same fashion and numbers as Mexicans. They were fleeing starvation and lack of opportunity for a land that could provide them with opportunity as well as sustenance. It amazes me how similar the rhetoric is. The Chinese immigrants went through much the same which is why they ended up building large portions of our rail system that we use even today.

      We closed our borders and created this problem because we no longer wanted open immigration in an attempt to limit our population growth. In addition to closing our borders we created rigid rules which say we can only allow so many people to immigrate from any single country. So we eliminated a majority of legal avenues for Mexicans to immigrate and then we're surprised when they walk on over because they want more opportunity than they can get in their home country.

      That is also the problem with trying to punish them. If they are already here what are you accomplishing by spending billions of tax payer funds to relocate them back to Mexico or Honduras, or any number of other countries who's people are often confused with Mexicans? You have to change your immigration policy if you're going to even attempt to repair the problem. You have to let more Mexican immigrants in, you have to give the people here a chance to become citizens, then the pressure is released and populations will begin to stabilize. Once that is done then you can absolutely send them home but since those numbers won't be on the order of 10s of millions of people you can actually accomplish your goal.

      America is obsessed with making sure criminals are punished hard instead of actually rehabilitated into a person that is actually useful to society instead of just being a drain that costs tax payers again more money than someone who makes minimum wage would make in a year.

    2. Re:Still septette circumstances and ideology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pretty much eliminate the middle class, unlike legal immigration which is much more even-handed in letting anyone apply.

      Having dealt with legal immigration into the US, and into a European country, I don't think it is even handed. It cost about $10k a person in both cases, although you can get that down to half of that assuming you can do the legal work yourself and not need any help double checking things. And that was for family members of someone who was a citizen in the country being immigrated to.

    3. Re:Still septette circumstances and ideology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The entire concept of making it illegal to move freely doesn't belong in a modern society.
      Illegal immigrants is a concept that only exists because people are racist and doesn't want foreigners around.

    4. Re:Still septette circumstances and ideology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are creating a false dichotomy and clearing forgetting about how this country came to be. The Irish came to this country in much the same fashion and numbers as Mexicans.

      Apples/oranges. Mexicans have been here all the time. Check your history.

    5. Re:Still septette circumstances and ideology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seeking asylum is not a crime. Therefore, to use your analogy, there is nothing to be pardoned.
      If you're against people seeking asylum, that's your choice, but don't try and convince yourself and others that the reason you feel this way is because they're criminals.

    6. Re:Still septette circumstances and ideology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical line of uninformed nonsense.

      "Modern society" has a lot of public (read: taxpayer funded) services like healthcare, welfare, housing assistance, education, etc. These programs are very expensive, especially in Europe. To add a large group of people to the beneficiaries list, while not adding to the income side of the equation, means these programs will collapse. And don't fool yourself into thinking these people are going to be a net gain to the economy. The vast majority have little or no education to speak of. Their role can't be much more than that of a labourer, which is a position rapidly decreasing in demand due to automation, machinery, and robotics.

      Add to that the religious baggage that many of these followers are carrying with them that is entirely incompatible with European (really, ANY free, non-muslim) society, and the crime that has increased dramatically as a result of their presence, and it is no wonder the people are pissed off. With the globalists and oligarchs pushing this down the politicians throats to enforce despite what the people say, you're almost guaranteed to get some severely angry people elected in their place.

      But according to you, it's all simple and straightforward. The whole problem is just "racists". Right...

    7. Re:Still septette circumstances and ideology by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      That's absolutely ridiculous.

      There is not an infinite supply of homes or services, there has to be a limit on the # of people.

      I want tons and tons of people from all countries to come here, this is the greatest country in the world. I _don't_ want people to come here illegally, and they should be prosecuted for doing so.

    8. Re:Still septette circumstances and ideology by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      There is not an infinite supply of homes or services, there has to be a limit on the # of people.

      The US has an incredibly low population density in many parts compared to Europe. There is more than enough room for a few million refugees from Syria and Libya.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:Still septette circumstances and ideology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that when other immigrants came over, they worked. Modern asylum-seekers get rent, food, clothing and transportation paid for at the expense of everyone that is working. There is an enormous difference between the two.

    10. Re:Still septette circumstances and ideology by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      So your against zoning laws too? Or are you saying a society can place limits on citizens but not on outsiders?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  47. Re: Easy to explain by Coren22 · · Score: 2

    You clearly have never been to a Home Depot in the morning on a work day.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  48. Re:A discussion about this without virtue signalin by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

    WTF is "virtue signaling"? Am I already behind by another new term?

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  49. Re: The strings are his to attach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Starting 1950 we needed a workforce in germany due to all the casualties of the war, so we invited people - and only the turks did not care about our past. Unfortunately we needed millions of workers for jobs without specific education, and the low-education level was kept in these families, plus we did not integrate them. Many of them have been integrated, but many are still low educated with a consequence of low income. We're welcoming the refugees since our birth rate is too low to pay the future rents. Many syrian refugees spent 100kâ to get here, you don't make such money from brooming the street or working in a coal mine. These guys escaped hell, we'll help them - let's see what happens.

  50. I am far more welcoming of immigrants than you by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    On a less polite side note, your comment sounds quite xenophobic.

    Why? I am for a massive expansion of LEGAL immigration. But you have to make the process fair, the way the current system works is those strong enough or with the most resources get to come into a country and take up room and jobs that could have been had by LEGAL immigrants, who are crowded out.

    Do you often push people out of the way to go to the head of lines? Because that is what is happening here, the most privileged are denying the weak or poor chances at immigration they would otherwise have.

    I'm not xenophobic but you ARE classist; you just don't realize how.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I am far more welcoming of immigrants than you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, there is no such thing as "illegal immigration". I didn't see any comment about wealthy immigrants (those usually migrate using an airplane, not in a crowded boat across the sea) getting ahead of the poor ones.
      On your observations about myself, that's quite the straw man you got there.

  51. Re:Easy to explain by jacekm · · Score: 0

    "The researcher has decided to act like a childish asshole".

    Glad that you mention. I always thought, that all those musicians who prohibit Republicans from using pieces of their music during election are childish assholes too.

    JAM

  52. Re:Easy to explain by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree with most of that, but I think you missed the most important point: why is key academic software not open source? I'm all for this guy's right to publish software under any license he chooses, but why would you embrace such software in the academic community? IMO, that's the lesson here.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  53. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasnt the original software GPL. Copy it fork it. Call it done?

  54. Re:The strings are his to attach by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    [Citation Needed]

    Illegal immigration is pretty damn high, but I guess you have numbers to show this significant reduction.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

    The numbers are about half of what Trump says the numbers are though:

    http://www.politifact.com/flor...

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  55. Re:Easy to explain by avandesande · · Score: 1

    you state this, "The researcher has decided to act like a childish asshole."

    Care to explain?

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  56. Re:The strings are his to attach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yep, not just Germany. Check out the violent crime and rape stats in Sweden: http://www.gatestoneinstitute....

    It's not so much that the statistics went up, it's that the courts are sympathizing with the rapists! Mind-boggling.

    P.S. to mods: This is not a troll. This is data.

  57. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's funny is that the musicians don't really have a choice in the matter. Venues are responsible for music licensing and have standard contracts with the record studios. They can complain all they want, but legally they have no standing.

  58. Re:A discussion about this without virtue signalin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you signal, or indicate, or make obvious; your righteous, virtuous feelings and opinions on a subject.
    This is in order to establish your reputation as virtuous.

    Examples are plentiful in this thread.

  59. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that it is a new story. Already discussed in this very same site

  60. Very unscientific move by De_Boswachter · · Score: 1

    So he's punishing scientists who have little or nothing to do with their nation's policies, regardless of whether those nations' policies are good or bad? Where is the logic in that? Luckily, scientists working in Syria are still allowed to use it. Also luckily, there are plenty of alternatives. http://phylogenetic.software.i...

    1. Re:Very unscientific move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if IMMIGRANT scientists hosted by a non-conforming state are eligible for an exemption. In theory, those scientists have no say over the host country's governance due to a lack of voting rights.

  61. Subtext is important by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Although he is not very semantically clear on the point, it seems like he is only against the mass influx of people currently being called "immigration".

    Do you really think he'd be against against immigration through the normal channels? It does not seem like that, because across Europe today to immigrate to the Schengen region you have to prove you are financially self-sufficient. He is against poor immigrants who come in with no means of support in large numbers.

    How can these immigrants be ILLEGAL when the countries named allow them entry?

    Just because you do not enforce a law does not mean it does not exist. What would happen do you think if you or I tried to enter exactly the same way?

    Are the majority of people in this wave criminals?

    All of them are, by definition.

    The UN seems to disagree with you.

    The same UN that whistles and looks away while human right abuses continue in China and the middle east? Nice moral authority you've chained yourself to.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Subtext is important by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Although he is not very semantically clear on the point, it seems like he is only against the mass influx of people currently being called "immigration"

      By definition, it is immigration. They reason why people leave and how they leave is not part of the definition.

      Do you really think he'd be against against immigration through the normal channels?

      The problem with "normal channel" argument is that the history of migration waves says most of them have not been through normal channels. For Europe, for the time periods before, during, and after WWII do you really think that people went through normal channels? In the history of the US, the large immigration waves from Europe during the 1800s did not have normal channels. People came to the US who could somehow afford the boat trip. They didn't ask the US for entry; they didn't ask their country for permission to depart. After the Vietnam War in the 1970s many countries like Australia and the US had to deal with large numbers of Vietnamese refugees. That too was not through "normal channels" by your definition.

      What you and he both seem to miss is that for most of Europe and especially in places like Germany is that they are currently in negative population growth. This means if they do not increase their population through immigration or procreation, their countries are going to start experiencing decline. This will have a negative effect on the welfare of those countries.

      Just because you do not enforce a law does not mean it does not exist.

      When a country voluntarily waives rules that it itself created that does not make the recipients of that change, criminals. That's like saying you are a thief at a store if the store manager/owner decided not to charge you for items.

      What would happen do you think if you or I tried to enter exactly the same way?

      Countries have their rules on immigration. Those who benefit from them are not criminals if you do not benefit from them.

      All of them are, by definition.

      According to you, not the countries that created the rules and waived them. By fiat, I can claim you a criminal in your country if another country like China says it's illegal in their country.

      The same UN that whistles and looks away while human right abuses continue in China and the middle east? Nice moral authority you've chained yourself to.

      We are talking about facts here. The UN actually counts these people and collects data on them. The morality is what you imposed on data without any sort of reference. Again, what is the source of your information or bias?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Subtext is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There goes superdickhead, bullshitting away.

    3. Re:Subtext is important by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      By definition, it is immigration.

      That's not the question, the question at hand is if it is illegal.

      The problem with "normal channel" argument is that the history of migration waves says most of them have not been through normal channels

      Again nothing to do with being legal or not.

      When a country voluntarily waives rules that it itself created

      Have they been waived? It seems like various countries are only waiving them in some cases, after review. Some not at all.

      Also according to your argument, all actions taking by a country are legal... do you really want to claim that?

      Again, I point out that it's the waiving and those taking advantage of that he takes issue with, not immigration in general. You have totally overlooked that point.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:Subtext is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After the Vietnam War in the 1970s many countries like Australia and the US had to deal with large numbers of Vietnamese refugees.

      I don't know how the US handled the intake, but in Australia refugee intake during this period was VERY highly controlled by the bureaucracy. You couldn't just arrive on a boat. Immigration absolutely was done through the "proper channels" or not at all.

    5. Re:Subtext is important by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      In the US it is also "highly controlled" because everybody from Vietnam who could physically get to the US was given paperwork. Indeed, they exactly only had to arrive on a boat, and declare that they were anti-Communist. That was the proper channel, because they were allies in a special situation.

      That is why it was controlled; because they were confident enough in their ability to get the paperwork that they freely applied. Doing the opposite generally results in less control, not more. You just might not have statistics to tell you. But lack of information often goes along with a lack of control.

    6. Re:Subtext is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In response to it being pointed out to you that the immigration officials are letting these people into the country _within_ the law, you wrote:

      Are the majority of people in this wave criminals?

      All of them are, by definition.

      You are, by definition, a complete idiot.

    7. Re:Subtext is important by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      And the current situation is still controlled. Maybe not as controlled by Australia mostly because there was that pesky ocean that prevented refugees from landing directly on Australian soil immediately.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:Subtext is important by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      That's not the question, the question at hand is if it is illegal.

      But all his arguments (and yours) do not really make the distinction. You mention it then ignore it completely. Your argument for why it is illegal is circular: These people shouldn't be allowed into the country because they are illegal criminals; they are criminals because they were allowed into the country.

      Again nothing to do with being legal or not.

      You brought up the "normal channel" argument and when shown it has never really been the case historically, you argue something else.

      Have they been waived? It seems like various countries are only waiving them in some cases, after review. Some not at all.

      You mean like when Chancellor Merkel herself said so?

      Also according to your argument, all actions taking by a country are legal... do you really want to claim that?

      No what I claim is your argument for them being illegal was circular. Again, you are not a thief if someone gives you something.

      Again, I point out that it's the waiving and those taking advantage of that he takes issue with, not immigration in general. You have totally overlooked that point.

      No but your point of them being illegal is not true. But let's address his point for its ridiculousness: He is punishing the users in a country for what the government of that country is doing. Now he's not forbidding sales to the governments of those countries. How is that not a terrible policy?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  62. Re:The strings are his to attach by unimacs · · Score: 0

    It sort of surprised me but then I thought about it and it pretty much paralleled how many people in the US act towards Mexican immigrants.

    Legal or illegal Mexican immigrants? I live in San Antonio and we are extremely tolerant toward legal Mexican immigrants. The Mexican Americans are not please with the illegal ones due to the jobs and resources they lose/share. For the most part, they really look down on them.

    Besides organizations like LaRaza, most of the support for illegal Mexicans comes from white people - usually either due to reasons of "white guilt" or cheap labor.

    It sort of surprised me but then I thought about it and it pretty much paralleled how many people in the US act towards Mexican immigrants.

    Legal or illegal Mexican immigrants? I live in San Antonio and we are extremely tolerant toward legal Mexican immigrants. The Mexican Americans are not please with the illegal ones due to the jobs and resources they lose/share. For the most part, they really look down on them.

    Besides organizations like LaRaza, most of the support for illegal Mexicans comes from white people - usually either due to reasons of "white guilt" or cheap labor.

    The Irish were hated for the same reasons back in the 1800s. They were seen as a cheaper source of labor that were taking the jobs of people already there.

    Mexican Americans look down on illegal ones? Why do they look down on them? Because they were too poor, uneducated, or didn't have the family ties to migrate here legally? I tend to be sympathetic towards them. They take substantial risks to improve their lives and the lives of their families. The same was true of our many immigrant ancestors and I think it's that history of risk-taking that has in many ways lead to the success of our country. It also explains some of the philosophical differences we have with other Western powers.

    The treefinder dude is a xenophobe. There is not much doubt about that. I would also not lay all the blame for the world's faults on US imperialism as he does. But I do think it's fairly obviously true that people will migrate to where conditions for them are likely to be better and corporations are more than willing to take advantage of that. That is nothing new.

  63. Re:A discussion about this without virtue signalin by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

    Gracias AC

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  64. Re: Easy to explain by Gizan · · Score: 2

    or you can pay a decent wage?

  65. Great test for what EULA conditions are binding by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2

    I don't think there is yet a clear legal precedent about what conditions in EULAs are and aren't legally binding. I want some German person to actually use this software, get sued and take this to Strasbourg, or maybe some higher court. I'm very confident that any sane court would rule that the researcher broke no law in using the software while German, and this is what we need to invalidate many other stupid conditions stipulated in software EULAs.

    1. Re:Great test for what EULA conditions are binding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be great because it would provide precedent for invalidating region restrictions on DVDs and other content. It's the exact same thing, right?

  66. Re:The strings are his to attach by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    The strings are his to attach

    And the paper is theirs to pull.

    Everybody wins.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  67. Re:The strings are his to attach by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

    So extremely tolerant that it is now a major rhetorical issue even though illegal immigration is 1/4 of what it was a decade ago and illegal Mexican immigration has fallen by 1/2.

    It's been a problem for a long time, not just now. It was a big enough problem that Reagan gave mass amnesty in exchange for stronger borders and the understanding that mass amnesty would never need to be offered again.

  68. Finally Proof! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Them immigrants - they done terkk his jerb!

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  69. Re:Easy to explain by sexconker · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see a written copy of said policy prior to this guy's changing his licensing terms, and I'd particularly like to see how it affects an 11-year old paper.

    This is a political move, through and through.

  70. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The developer link to the following leaked US state department cable in an interview. I think its also listed as a link on his download page:

    https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/10PARIS58_a.html

    Here's an interesting part of the cable produced from the US Embassy in France:

    C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 PARIS 000058 NOFORN SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/31/2019 TAGS: PGOV, PREL, KIRF, KISL, FR SUBJECT: EMBASSY PARIS - MINORITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY REF: A. SECSTATE 127215 B. PARIS 1714 Classified By: Ambassador Charles H. Rivkin, Reasons 1.4(b),(d).

    1. (C/NF) SUMMARY: In keeping with France's unique history and circumstances, Embassy Paris has created a Minority Engagement Strategy that encompasses, among other groups, the French Muslim population and responds to the goals outlined in reftel A. Our aim is to engage the French population at all levels in order to amplify France's efforts to realize its own egalitarian ideals, thereby advancing U.S. national interests .

    The other linked docs and articles document the same things.

    "The promotion of world-wide migration is part of their plan. They even start wars just to generate enough migration. They are trying to destroy the world’s nations, because nations would defend themselves against foreign rulers. A world of migrants, on the other hand, would not care much who ruled. And this is not a conspiracy theory, it is written in books by leading US-ideologists, e.g. Barnett, Brzezinski."

    This thinking has been even dramatized in a movie like "Children of Men" I mean, looking at the results in the ME due to the military interventionism of the US and other Western powers, it really does seems like destabilization, especially of the relatively secular states not aligned with the West like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and the rest is a goal here.

  71. I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You clearly have never been to a Home Depot in the morning on a work day.

    This is why I will never say anything bad about Mexican immigrants. You see dozens of them out at Home Depot waiting patiently for hard work. I have NEVER seen a unemployed white guy out there. I only ever see white people standing on street corners with cardboard signs, begging for handouts. I welcome immigrants (documented or otherwise) willing to come to our country and work hard to get ahead. Good for them. The only welfare leeches I see are the native citizens with a sense of entitlement that aren't willing to try to do some real work when they are unemployed.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I came across as critical of illegal immigrants with that, I did not mean it that way. My problem with illegal immigration is that the illegal immigrants are too easy to take advantage of by employers. If they were not illegal, then they couldn't be taken advantage of. But I am fully with your point, I will support someone who is willing to work for their money, I never give to the people with signs, I always tell them I don't carry cash.

      What likely would fix illegal immigration would be a migrant visa. It will never happen though, as there is too much money to be made by the modern slavery of illegal immigration.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some of those street corners can be very lucrative. A newspaper survey found an intersection in San Francisco that made $85 per hour.

    3. Re:I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of those street corners can be very lucrative. A newspaper survey found an intersection in San Francisco that made $85 per hour.

      What do you mean? Each person on that corner got $85/hr or everyone collectively earned $85/hr? Cause the latter sounds a lot more plausible than the former.

    4. Re:I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      One person at a stoplight that turns on to the freeway entrance ramp made $85 per hour.

    5. Re:I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've never seen immigrants--legal or illegal--be leeches? Then you must not live in a blue state.

      And if you give those "hard working" illegal Latin American immigrants amnesty, you wanna see how many more of them are gonna chose to work hard instead of go on the dole?

      FACT: immigrants have distinctly HIGHER rates of welfare than native Americans: "immigrant households use welfare at significantly higher rates than native households, even higher than indicated by other Census surveys...In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households "
      http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households

      FACT: "Notably, illegal immigrants are already receiving significant amounts of government benefits, writes Inserra. In 2010, the typical illegal immigrant household received $24,721 in government benefits but paid just over $10,000 in taxes..."
      http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25056

    6. Re:I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by erapert · · Score: 2

      The thing about hard working Mexican immigrants is this: they're the cream of the crop. Lazy people don't uproot, go to a foreign country where they'll be in the minority, and then go find a job and work hard at it.

      Working hard is, and should be, highly respected.

      But our laws and our borders should also be respected. I have absolutely no problem with someone coming into my house as a guest. But I do lock my front door because I don't want just anybody walking into my house and eating my food without contributing to my household or even so much as a how-do-you-do. Furthermore, while someone is in my house they must respect my property and my customs-- it's my house not theirs.

      Brain surgeons, rocket scientists, and hard-working people are respectable. Great. But that doesn't give them a free pass to abuse my home and take advantage of me nor my country.

      How would you feel if someone just walked into your home, tracked mud all over your carpet, drank all your beer then demanded that he be allowed to stay without paying rent and also be given a full voice in how the house was to be run?

      Illegals come over our border without our permission.
      They bring in drugs which ruin the lives of our citizens, some of them are rapists and murderers and continue their habits when they're here.
      They use up welfare that our productive citizens worked hard to pay the taxes for-- and the illegal immigrants don't pay into this system, or if some do they don't pay nearly as much as a citizen does.
      And then to top it all off they want to continue doing all of the above and they vote in our elections!

      If the people that you rightfully laud for their hard work are truly interested in becoming part of the USA family then they should be crying louder than anyone for a chance to pay back-taxes + a fine for the chance to become citizens. Any illegal immigrant that just wants a free pass is doing nothing other than taking advantage of the USA and abusing the system for all its worth.

    7. Re:I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They bring in drugs which ruin the lives of our citizens, some of them are rapists and murderers and continue their habits when they're here.

      Hmmm is this a quote from somewhere? It sounds so familiar...

    8. Re:I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You left out a bunch of management at corporations.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      If there is more than one person on the corner, they call that a "stabbing." It is lucrative, but only for a few seconds. Then it goes sideways.

    10. Re:I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens to the Mexican immigrants when they get bad backs and knees from all the hard labor you welcome them to do?

    11. Re: I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Unless your home language us cherokee or apache or navajo or something you are not a "native" American.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re:I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It is their choice to work like that. They aren't my responsibility as they are not citizens of my country. They are the responsibility of Mexico and their social safety net.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re:I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Never, never, never give money to the bums who are sitting in a prime panhandling spot. Those are the violent ones. Seriously violent, but mostly a danger to other bums.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re: I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If your born here, you are native. Stop trying to redefine terms to suit your argument.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re: I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My my my me me me

    16. Re:I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      And most of them are iv drug abusers. SF is a shithole.

    17. Re: I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by erapert · · Score: 1

      You'll have a point as soon as a Latin American country (or any country) lets me live there without registering or paying taxes but still enjoying all the benefits, such as fire and police protection, free healthcare, free education.

    18. Re: I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR MEXICAN OVERLORDS by netsurfer912 · · Score: 1

      so the first current americans ... were immigrants! the natives should have sent them right back.

  72. Sounds like a decent fellow... by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

    The earlier the system crashes, the more damage can be avoided. Possibly a civil war in Europe. Not to mention the loss of our European genetic and cultural heritage.

    What about our precious bodily fluids?

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  73. A very strange protest by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    The author believes his home country is too generous to outsiders which he feels harms his self-interest. In response, he withholds permission to use his software to further harm his nation which would seem to also harm his self-interest in indirect ways.

    Interestingly, he also protests US imperialism which he admits Europe is an accessory too. However, fewer refugees being created would be a natural consequence of stopping imperialism. So why doesn't he just focus his energy on that issue?

  74. Re:The strings are his to attach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    usually either due to reasons of "white guilt" or cheap labor.

    Correct. Leftists/socialists are the "white guilt" crowd while K-Street Republicans are pro-cheap labor. Meanwhile, everybody else that's trying to earn a middle class existence are getting fucked over regardless of their race.

  75. Re: Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I had a friend who ran a nursery. He tried hiring non-Hispanic workers and it was a disaster. They couldn't tell the difference between a plant and a weed and they did a terrible job. The Hispanic workers knew what they were doing. In his case he hired legal workers.

  76. Re:Easy to explain by gringer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    why is key academic software not open source?

    Because people do the minimum required to get publications (and/or money), and cleaning up source code (so it can be exposed to the world) is a lot of work. This is especially the case if the code depends on other libraries with various different software licenses.

    One of the ways to help fix this problem is to place restrictions on publication, so that open source licences are required for software. F1000 Research has just changed their policy to do this:

    http://blog.f1000research.com/...

    We recently strengthened our stance on software availability to better align with our Open Science principles. Now, the source code underlying any newly presented software must be made publicly available and assigned an open license. We strongly encourage the use of an OSS approved licence, but will accept other open licenses including Creative Commons. Software papers describing non-open software, code and/or web tools will be rejected.

    The current situation demonstrates that forcing these licenses is required in order to get people to use them. BMC Evolutionary Biology already had a recommendation for open source licenses in its policy:

    BMC Evolutionary Biology recommends , but does not require, that the source code of the software should be made available under a suitable open-source license that will entitle other researchers to further develop and extend the software if they wish to do so. Typically, an archive of the source code of the current version of the software should be included with the submitted manuscript as a supplementary file. Since it is likely that the software will continue to be developed following publication, the manuscript should also include a link to the home page for the software project. For open source projects, we recommend that authors host their project with a recognized open-source repository such as bioinformatics.org or sourceforge.net

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
  77. Re:The strings are his to attach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've heard the exact same things said about Mexican immigrants in the US, yet I had no specific problems with my neighbours, my classmates when I was in school, or classmates of my kids. I've also heard the same thing said about Panamanians when I was in Costa Rica for a while. And for people from Botswana when I was in South Africa.

    All too often people are vague when referencing problems like this because they don't have more specific things to say. Or they do have specifics, but aren't comfortable with saying what the actual problem is because some part of them doesn't think it is wrong to be upset over that. Just saying things of the lines of, "spend some time with people X and you would know why they are a problem," backfires when some people have spent time and still don't have a problem.

  78. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The researcher has decided to act like a childish asshole."
    The researcher does not agree with his country policy and because he can't change it, he'll change the few things he can. It's a political statement. Whether you like it or not, you've listened to it, interpreted it, it's goal was fulfilled.

  79. Theyre not refugees! by Prune · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most of these people are economic migrants, not refugees. In the case of Syrians now flooding into Europe, for example, most did not come directly from Syria — they came from migrant camps in Turkey. Turkey is a stable and safe country, but doesn't provide quite the level of social services and economic opportunities that a Western European country does. Of course, as has been pointed out in various places, the German government is worried about an aging population and needs young workers, so they opened the gates under the pretense of humanitarian reasons — preservation of culture, values, and social cohesion be damned.

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    1. Re:Theyre not refugees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is that not a refugee? It's not like they built up a permanent residence in Turkey.

    2. Re:Theyre not refugees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your culture is a decadent and corrupt, then it's should explicitly not be preserved.

    3. Re:Theyre not refugees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't stop being a refugee as soon as you leave your home country. So it's not correct to say that Syrians are economic migrants in Germany. It may be legitimate for Germany to refuse them residency but that's not the same thing.

    4. Re:Theyre not refugees! by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      There is no moral imperative to preserve cultures in some stagnant state. Archive and document it maybe, but I've yet to hear a good reason that any culture should be frozen in time for anyone. In a similar fashion values also shift and change over time, and there is little real reason to insist that a group of people stick with any one set indefinitely. By advocating for the preservation of specific sets of values, and cultures you are actually damaging social cohesion. The more we meld together and discover common cause with our neighbors learning each others culture and values, the better suited we all are to interact socially in a safe manner.

    5. Re:Theyre not refugees! by ArcSecond · · Score: 1
      'Turkey is a stable and safe country'

      Wrong and wrong.

      --

      I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

    6. Re:Theyre not refugees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... because 70% of them are not refugees. Go on-line and read ..

    7. Re:Theyre not refugees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the definition of refugee that you use. If you follow the UN definition simply fleeing a war zone does not make you a refugee. Similarly the fact that there might have been terrorist activity in your country with bombs going off also does not make you a refugee. Further that one area of your country has become unsafe again does not make you a refugee should you try to flee to somewhere else. Finally breaking the law in your home country does not necessarily make you a refugee either.

    8. Re:Theyre not refugees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kurd asswipe detected. Why don't you go back to massacring Christian minorities in Syria and Iraq, motherfucker?

  80. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do you understand That the Republican party has been taken over by far-right sociopaths? Blocking those scumbags is behaving responsibly, and is anything but childish.

    Denying your work to Republican yahoos, is not being an asshole, it's opposing them. I'm getting really tired of the false-balance when one party has gone completely insane over the past 2 decades.

  81. Re:Easy to explain by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    Did OkCupid act like an asshole when they blocked Firefox to demonstrate their disdain for Mozilla's CEO? Or was that acceptable because it had a liberal slant whereas this story has a conservative one?

  82. Re:The strings are his to attach by unimacs · · Score: 1

    We always like to blame somebody else. It's not so simple. We all want cheap stuff. You don't get cheap stuff by paying high wages. Even if an employer wants to do the right thing and pay their employees decent wages, how long do you think they will last against their competitors who are more than happy to pay as little as they possibly can?

    Where I do agree with the treefinder dude is that the never-ending quest to find low-cost or no cost labor creates a lot of social problems. But I think it's overly simplistic to blame all the world's problems on US imperialism like he does. I'm also disturbed by his fear over the "loss of European genetic heritage".

  83. Re:The strings are his to attach by kamapuaa · · Score: 2

    I'm sure that's true, due to your extensive knowledge. Also, most black people agree with you that black teens need to pull their pants up and stop blaming society for there problems, and most gays agree with you that homosexuals should have some legal protection but not be given full rights of marriage, which are historically understood to be between a man and a woman.

    The liberals are making up these platforms all themselves! All people discriminated against, in any way, know that right wing Texans speak the truth.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  84. Re: Easy to explain by Darinbob · · Score: 2

    Good thing you have no ancestors in you phylogenetic tree that were immigrants.

  85. anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many moons ago I worked part time in Berkeley. Frequently the store would have homeless people sleeping or just generally loitering in the vicinity. The Boss (tm) came up with the bright idea to try to hire them to sweep up the fallen leaves and litters around the store. His "kind" offer of $5 an hour (when minimum wage was $6 + change) were rejected by every single homeless persons in the area; apparently they were getting $15+ an hour panhandling on fairly consistent basis.

  86. Re:LOL by blogagog · · Score: 1

    Agreed. We need to make the whole world a better place to live. When massive amounts of people emigrate from a land, it means that we have failed in doing that.

  87. Re:Easy to explain by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    He disagrees with some of the political decisions made by the politicians in some countries.

    Thus he is banning the use of his software by non-politician academics who happen to be in those countries. Regardless of the actual views those scientists have - and note it is affecting biologists which isn't exactly a field famous for being politically powerful and driving country level politics.

    It's exactly childish - lashing out at something almost but not quite related to the thing you are angry about.

  88. Re: Easy to explain by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    or you can pay a decent wage?

    That's not very "business friendly."

  89. Re:We need to legalize migrant workers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need access to affordable healthcare!
    And you think that happens in America?

    In Dec 2014, we paid $146/month for health insurance.

    In Jan 2015, the price for less coverage and a 50% higher deductible was $320/month.

    In Jan 2016, the price goes to $360/month. That's a 246% increase in 13 months.

    Thank you President Obama, though I really think it is insurance companies using the new requirements to blame anyone who forces them to do what is right. In the end, we get screwed.

    Not sure what migrant workers have to do with this. It isn't like they create new pharmaceutical treatments or fill nursing or PA or MD positions.

  90. Re:Easy to explain by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

    "What's the point of having a policy and then not following it?"

    Or a Constitution.

    Oh, wait....

  91. Re:Easy to explain by avandesande · · Score: 1

    It's not childish at all, businesses commonly withdraw their services because they don't consent to something, often times political. As a software developer this is his 'business'. How is this different? Please contrast with thing like beating up refugees.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  92. A peaceful kind of protest. I like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He took his ball and went home.

  93. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, this story is leftist (or rightist if you're a paleoconservative), or more specifically, anti-globalist as someone else commented earlier. The developer is looking at refugee problem in the context of a global scheme to weaken nation-state sovereignty. You know, the move to a "One World" government goal that all politicians make rhetorical references to? Well, guess what, they're not being rhetorical.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strobe_Talbott#cite_note-14

    "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
      –in Time magazine, America Abroad: The Birth of the Global Nation, Monday, July 20, 1992

  94. Re:Easy to explain by Rakarra · · Score: 2

    Did OkCupid act like an asshole when they blocked Firefox to demonstrate their disdain for Mozilla's CEO?

    Yeah, pretty much. They were both dicks. Restricting access to software to those whose political beliefs you share is going down a pretty dark path.

  95. INDONESIA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's where they should go to. Same religion, relative peace, passable standards of living, an entire nation to be built, etc.

  96. Re:Easy to explain by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    Yeah, exactly. This is pretty much the same as Kim Davis, except that Jobb is only inconveniencing himself.

    He can take whatever stand he likes as far as I'm concerned, whether noble or petty. It's his right to do so. But if he doesn't do his job (which for a scientist includes not actively preventing other researchers from replicating your results), he has to face the consequences for that.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  97. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He states this: "Starting from 1st February 2015, I do no longer permit the usage of my TREEFINDER software in the USA. For all other countries, the old license agreement remains valid."

    But then he states this: "I want to stress that this license change is not against my colleagues in the USA, but against a small rich elite there that misuses the country's power to rule the world.

    Which leaves it ambiguous as to whom the licensing change really affects. Is it the whole of the USA, or just the USA rich elite excluding his scientific colleagues?

    My guess would be that if this came up in a court case, these changes to his original license (or maybe all of it) would be struck down for being too ambiguous and overly broad. In which case, the software would simply be covered by the copyright laws of his country. I suspect he knows this and is simply using this licensing issue as a way to voice his dissent to the refugee/immigration policies of Europe and the US.

    Childish or conscientious? Personally, I'd say conscientious in context of the globalists goals he's protesting.

  98. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First you might want to ask the EU why they are not following their own policies and procedures with the immigrants.

  99. Re:Easy to explain by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Why not contrast it with eating a banana? Since it has more relevance to that than beating up refugees.

    None-childish asshole businesses withdraw there services in some way that impacts the politics they don't like. This is refusing service to all people with the name "Fred" because someone with the name "Alan" holds a different political view to himself.

  100. Re:Easy to explain by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    When entity A punishes group B because entity A disagrees with entity C ... then, yes, I'm afraid "asshole" is how I would interpret that.

    Going all "boo hoo, I'm taking my ball and going home" is pretty much the epitome of childish.

    Please, shove your liberal and conservative crap up your ass, because I really don't care.

    I rank this right up with "no black people can use my software because I dislike Jamie Foxx". It's stupid, petulant, and childish. I don't much care what the issue is.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  101. Re:Easy to explain by Khashishi · · Score: 2

    Open source doesn't mean free.

  102. Re:Easy to explain by avandesande · · Score: 2

    But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  103. Re:The strings are his to attach by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Legal or illegal Mexican immigrants? I live in San Antonio and we are extremely tolerant toward legal Mexican immigrants. The Mexican Americans are not please with the illegal ones due to the jobs and resources they lose/share. For the most part, they really look down on them.

    Maybe that's just a San Antonio thing. In the rest of the country, Mexican Americans are trying every rhetorical and legal trick they can to make illegal immigrants welcomed. That includes:

    *) Lobbying for "sanctuary city" status, where the local government is prohibited from working with state/feds unless the subject is suspected of non-immigration-related crimes.
    *) Opposition to the phrase "illegal immigrants," because they say a person can't be illegal. Even though their very presence is a continued, illegal action, that there's pretty much nothing they can do short of returning across the border without it being illegal.
    *) Using "immigrant" as much as possible to describe both legal and illegal immigrants. They want to blur that line as much as possible so they can attack politicians and other groups for being "anti-immigrant," when they only oppose illegal immigrants.
    *) The usual cries about pulling apart families, etcetc.
    *) Not bring up the issue of legal immigrants going through the legal process and waiting to become US citizens. They don't want to talk about that at all.

    I disagree with the assertion that most of the support comes from white people. Just listen to Latino USA on NPR, watch Univision, or other Hispanic or Mexican American channels. It's stated by both sides without controversy that the reason Republicans have so little support with Hispanic/Mexican-American is their illegal immigration stance, and their attempts to court those ethnicities is a big reason why Republicans have blocked action on illegal immigration matters.

  104. Re: Easy to explain by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Nor is it friendly to people coming up from the bottom of nothingness, as many immigrants do.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  105. Re:LOL by GLMDesigns · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So. Who decides who enters the country? The citizens or everyone else? And what do you do with immigrants that do not want to conform to the norms of the parent country?

    It's not simply a matter of calling someone a neo-na%i f**ta7d

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  106. Re:The strings are his to attach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most gays agree with you that homosexuals should have some legal protection but not be given full rights of marriage

    Is that so? I disagree.
    Would you like to expand on exactly which rights of marriage you think that homosexuals should NOT have?

  107. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets not forget people which im not gonna name here, start wars because someone with he name "'Hussein", "Ghaddafi" or "Assad" holds a different political view then themselves. I would have preferred them to act in a similar childish way and not bombing whole countries back into stone age.

    Now they dont take any of the refugees, neither do their powerful and wealthy arab allies. Nope, Europe has to. But dare any European to speak up, then he is either a Nazi or acting in a childish way. Thank you, very much.

  108. Re:Easy to explain by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    There's a world of difference between refusing to allow your work to be seen as endorsing a politician whose views you despise, and refusing to allow your work to be used by ordinary people who happen to live in a country with a political position you disagree with.

    Remember that many of the people who are banned from using this bit of software agree with its author.

    That's a far cry from Bruce Springsteen saying he'd prefer Trump not play "Born in the USA" at his campaign rallies (I have no idea if Trump has done that, or Bruce would object - though I'd guess he probably would, but the point is it's a different situation.)

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  109. YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A CAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thankfully, his download link still works here in Texas. Looks like someone has not done his due diligence to protect his intellectual property!

  110. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/robert-reich-what-happened-my-tour-through-red-state-america

    I wanted to learn from red America, and hoped they’d also learn a bit from me (and perhaps also buy my book).

    But something odd happened. It turned out that many of the conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers I met agreed with much of what I had to say, and I agreed with them.

    For example, most condemned what they called “crony capitalism,” by which they mean big corporations getting sweetheart deals from the government because of lobbying and campaign contributions.

    I met with a group of small farmers in Missouri who were livid about growth of “factory farms” owned and run by big corporations, that abused land and cattle, damaged the environment, and ultimately harmed consumers.

    They claimed giant food processors were using their monopoly power to squeeze the farmers dry, and the government was doing squat about it because of Big Agriculture’s money.

    I met in Cincinnati with Republican small-business owners who are still hurting from the bursting of the housing bubble and the bailout of Wall Street.

    “Why didn’t underwater homeowners get any help?” one of them asked rhetorically. “Because Wall Street has all the power.” Others nodded in agreement.

    Whenever I suggested that big Wall Street banks be busted up – “any bank that’s too big to fail is too big, period” – I got loud applause.

    In Kansas City I met with Tea Partiers who were angry that hedge-fund managers had wangled their own special “carried interest” tax deal.

    “No reason for it,” said one. “They’re not investing a dime of their own money. But they’ve paid off the politicians.”

    In Raleigh, I heard from local bankers who thought Bill Clinton should never have repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. “Clinton was in the pockets of Wall Street just like George W. Bush was,” said one.

    Most of the people I met in America’s heartland want big money out of politics, and think the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision was shameful.

    Most are also dead-set against the Trans Pacific Partnership. In fact, they’re opposed to trade agreements, including NAFTA, that they believe have made it easier for corporations to outsource American jobs abroad.

    A surprising number think the economic system is biased in favor of the rich. (That’s consistent with a recent Quinnipiac poll in which 46 percent of Republicans believe “the system favors the wealthy.”)

    So there's a shift (or rather a return) in the attitudes of the Republican base where, after several decades of the reverse being true, Big Business is now becoming just as suspect as Big Government and suddenly the liberals are infatuated with identity politics over economic concerns that affect middle class and poor.

  111. Re:Easy to explain by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    The problem there is that OKCupid never blocked Firefox. They presented Firefox users with a message expressing their concerns, but the website was otherwise entirely accessible to Firefox users.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  112. Re:A discussion about this without virtue signalin by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    When you signal, or indicate, or make obvious; your righteous, virtuous feelings and opinions on a subject.
    This is in order to establish your reputation as virtuous.

    But people need to know how much better I am than the unenlightened. How are they supposed to understand that in a short thread or Slashdot story without just coming right out with the outrage?

  113. Re:The strings are his to attach by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Being largely political in nature, I'm not entirely sure that this is a discussion regarding this issue requires a reasonable perspective... :p

  114. Funny when the tables are turned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most progressives love it when a license agreement is used to foist a political point of view on other people. The GPL is a very political license. It's funny to see that when somebody exercises the right to apply his own license to his own software with a political agenda progressives don't like they get upset.

    I personally liked the "good old days" before a soviet-style crap-sandwich of "everything is political" arose in America. Software licenses USED to just be about how many copies of an application could be made, bans on de-compiling, etc. and not any political agendas.

    You kids, git off my lawn!

  115. Re:Easy to explain by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    I agree both are being assholes, but if you go back and read about that other controversy, the spin was far different. There is a social revolution going on, and it's made possible by the Internet and related technologies. You may not care for A vs B, it may fuel a lot of childish actions, but it's going on and it's relevant. It's shaping the course of politics and social norms which will inevitably impact all of us.

  116. Re:The strings are his to attach by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's amazing how once you make something legal, it's no longer illegal. Those tricky Mexicans!!

  117. Re: Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama needs his cheap arugula.

    The immigration in Europe is a disaster. They've imported third world garbage into first world nations. They are behaving like they are still inthe the third world. Shitting outside, treating the local women as if they cattle like they treat their own women, bitching about the churches. Fucking Barbarians. They should be sent back to die at the hands of their own brethren.

    70% of the are military age men.

  118. Re:Easy to explain by Your.Master · · Score: 1

    It's very clear. It says that it's not permitted in the USA. His follow-up statement is a statement about his intents.

  119. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make immigrants program an open source version of that software, and re-publish the paper replacing that shitty software.. Maybe thank those immigrants by giving them residency too.. Problem solved.

  120. Re:Easy to explain by William+Baric · · Score: 1

    I believe the first principle in a "democracy" is that politicians we elect represent the population. Based on this, even if I disagree with what my government is doing, even if I didn't vote for the current party in power, I'm still responsible for the actions of my government.

  121. Re:The strings are his to attach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's the cultural differences that matter.
    In the EU the cultures don't vary much, even when comparing most western to most eastern countries. Turks, Syrians, Kurds are very very different than, say, Romanians, Greeks or Bulgarians.
    This matters a lot because while you change the country, changing yourself is hard and many of them bring that culture with them, finding it easier to compromise a little and continue as they did back home instead of adopting everything from their new country.
    This is what angers people when it comes to immigrants. They don't see them as fellow citizens born in another country, but foreigners with the same rights and benefits, but with additional perks. Recognition from the state for their special status, help to integrate in various ways, belonging to a minority, political or social group. I don't know any social psychology but it's all there.
    To get back to your issue, Mexico is USAs neighbor and both cultures interconnect a lot. There are very few cultural barriers and most of them are either understood by both sides or simply accepted as normal.

    Personally, I was curious about moving to another country early in life, but it was just wanderlust. If you can't make a home where you are now, changing the geographical location won't help much. Of course, living in a country with any kind of war going is different matter.

  122. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's not clear at all. Jesus, its a political rant, not a licensing agreement. The very fact he puts a qualifier at the end which specifies to whom the change is directed puts the integrity of this license as a legal instrument into doubt. Plus, though I'm not familiar with German laws on the matter, putting discriminatory language in a licensing agreement without a legally recognized cause for doing so probably voids the license as well. I can't think of any kind of license which would exclude the entire population of a nation state being help up as valid unless the licensor's country had laws which allow a provision in the license to do so. For instance, because of US embargoes of Iran or Cuba, a US developer could put a clause in the license forbidding users in those states from using his software, but if he put one in prohibiting users in Great Britain, I doubt that would hold up in court.

  123. Re:The strings are his to attach by sumdumass · · Score: 2

    You don't get cheap stuff by paying high wages.

    Yes you do- or can. It's all about efficiency and productivity though. Paying someone who produces 1000 units an hour an extra 10 dollars per hour comes out to just 1 cent difference on the per unit costs.Of course taxes add to it and it wouldn't be that simple because there would be an additional employment tax as well as social security and so on on top of that 10 dollars but you can get the point easily.

    It is a lot harder however when you are providing services of some sort or when the production is lower. At 100 units per hour, the cost difference would be roughly 10 cents per unit (not considering taxes and all). So if someone could pick your tomatoes at a rate of 100 packs an hour (lets say 2 tomatoes to a pack), paying them $20 an hour would have a cost associated with 20 cents on each pack of tomatoes purchased. Paying them a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would be 13 some cents cheaper so it isn't a huge cost increase to pay them a little more.

    Where it hurts is when you can only service or produce 10 units per hour. An extra $10 dollar per hour would be $1 per unit. A typical waitress at one of these full service chain restaurants can likely handle 4 to 6 tables an hour depending on the number of people at each table. If every table leave $2 for a tip, they are earning $8 to $12 more per hour than their base salary. But as restaurants usually have it, they are not packed enough at all times of the day to enable this type of turnover so there will be several hours which the waitress/waiter would only service 1 or 2 units per hour and you would need a tip increased quite a bit to make up the difference.

  124. We are a territorial species by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This has been a problem since before humans were humans, humans and most other primates are highly territorial, they naturally form tribes with a hierarchical social structure. It's possible our invention of civilization will eventually change that but it hasn't happened yet, however it has dramatically changed the size of our tribes from a few hundred to hundreds of millions and those who attempt to swap tribes are likely to survive the ordeal, the behaviour of our species is moving away from the standard primate model, it now behaves like a cross between human tribalism and a technologically advanced termite mound.

    At the end of the day the fighting is always about resources but we justify and rationalise it with our natural xenophobia. This is the way "nature intended", it is in the wetware toolbox we were given at birth. Peaceful co-existence in a land of plenty is what we all want, ironically our xenophobic tendencies mean we are more than willing to wipe out other tribes to get it.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  125. Re:The strings are his to attach by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    The Mexican Americans are not pleased with the illegal ones due to the jobs and resources they lose/share

    That's just human nature. People who have jumped thru all the legal hoops think everyone else should do the same, regardless of the purpose of those hoops. It doesn't matter if the hoops are irrationally based on a lottery, they jumped the hoops and having done so they will feel superior to those who walked around, the more insane the hoops the more superior they feel.

    As for "stealing jobs" - that is an illogical but common attitude. More than any other nation, US economic and military might was built on the backs of immigrants (both free and forced).

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  126. Re:The strings are his to attach by Sique · · Score: 1
    Marriage was historically understood as a way to determine who should inherit the wealth. Children born in wedlock were entitled, children born outside the wedlock were not. That's all what marriage was about.

    It also meant that no one was allowed to marry who had no wealth to pass on. Homeless people were not allowed to marry. People without a profession were not allowed to marry. People without their own business or without an estate were not allowed to marry etc.pp.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  127. Re: Easy to explain by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Of course they don't. They're Black African - San tribe, probably. Sheesh. They've been there since we humans crawled down from the trees! Immigration? No, not them. They're not tainted with that stain - they're black people, still residing in sub-Saharan western Africa. (I bet that pisses their parents off.)

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  128. Re:Easy to explain by towermac · · Score: 1

    Did he get to the part where all those things were done to us by Democrats? (except possibly the carried interest tax deal, don't know about that one)

    Hell, a couple of them, Reich is partly responsible for himself.

    It is really scary how the Democrats can set up a narrative and that instantly becomes the new reality.

  129. Re: Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is no one going to ask the question of whether this guy's manifesto has any legal authority?

    Is no one going to point out that the version of the software referenced in the paper is still available on the terms the journal approves of?

    Has Slashdot really become this non-autistic to avoid technical points of law and software contracting/licensing debates?

  130. Re:Easy to explain by KGIII · · Score: 1

    It makes sense. The scientists in the disallowed countries can no longer verify the work using the software. The findings are, to them, unreproducible. They can not further the science. I hope that the paper's author can reproduce the work with something else, easily.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  131. Re:The strings are his to attach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say nice strawman but you completely missed on the covertly part so I guess troll would be a better description
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    I'd try to address your counterpoint, but I can't really find one in your comment.

  132. Re:Easy to explain by KGIII · · Score: 1

    You make me want to write some open source code, something quick and easy, and disallow its use by white, heterosexual, males. Maybe I'll bang out a quick PHP script that incorporates CAPTCHA or something stupid - something where there are plenty of alternatives. Just to see what happens. To release under my own name or what... Hmm... GitHub? :D

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  133. Re:The strings are his to attach by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Strangely, back home, we've a lot of immigrants of the illegal variety. The current assumption is that they're not actually noticed and so aren't really counted very well. See, they're white. They come from Canada and work in the woods, drive pulp trucks, and things like that. They speak Canadian French so I sort of understand them now but it has taken some work. They're high enough in population that, by conversation, I've managed to pick up on the language fairly well. Well, enough to find a bathroom, order food, and get nookie. La bier est tres bien! Merci!

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  134. Re:The strings are his to attach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what a load of bullshit. thats hardly even correlation, let alone causation. how do those stats relate to immigrants? could it not be that the goal posts are set lower in Sweden, e.g. sex without a condom is considered rape?

  135. Re:The strings are his to attach by KGIII · · Score: 1

    In many cases, the only rights they wish to withhold are the rights to the use of the name. I tend to agree but for different reasons. My reasoning is that it is a contract between two people and should be treated as such. There's a separation between church and State. The State should not be in the business of marriage. The State should be handing out civil union contracts. The fundies are able to engage in whatever silly rituals they want and call themselves whatever they want but all prior marriages should be automatically converted to civil unions and we should use only civil unions going forward and stop with this silliness in its entirety. Fuck the fundies. Let them have their silly rituals and names. Keep the State out of it. The whole ordeal could have been rendered null and void with just a wee little bit of thinking.

    Nobody ever listens to David. Ever... *sighs* It would have pissed off the fundies to no end but what could they do? It would have solved the whole problem, once and for all. It also would have been an excellent IRL troll. Civil unions for everybody! Including turtles!

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  136. All NAZIs are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All NAZIs are stupid

  137. Re:The strings are his to attach by unimacs · · Score: 3, Informative

    You don't get cheap stuff by paying high wages.

    Yes you do- or can. It's all about efficiency and productivity though. Paying someone who produces 1000 units an hour an extra 10 dollars per hour comes out to just 1 cent difference on the per unit costs.Of course taxes add to it and it wouldn't be that simple because there would be an additional employment tax as well as social security and so on on top of that 10 dollars but you can get the point easily.

    It is a lot harder however when you are providing services of some sort or when the production is lower. At 100 units per hour, the cost difference would be roughly 10 cents per unit (not considering taxes and all). So if someone could pick your tomatoes at a rate of 100 packs an hour (lets say 2 tomatoes to a pack), paying them $20 an hour would have a cost associated with 20 cents on each pack of tomatoes purchased. Paying them a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would be 13 some cents cheaper so it isn't a huge cost increase to pay them a little more.

    Where it hurts is when you can only service or produce 10 units per hour. An extra $10 dollar per hour would be $1 per unit. A typical waitress at one of these full service chain restaurants can likely handle 4 to 6 tables an hour depending on the number of people at each table. If every table leave $2 for a tip, they are earning $8 to $12 more per hour than their base salary. But as restaurants usually have it, they are not packed enough at all times of the day to enable this type of turnover so there will be several hours which the waitress/waiter would only service 1 or 2 units per hour and you would need a tip increased quite a bit to make up the difference.

    For a single tomato, 20 cents a tomato vs. 8 cents doesn't seem like a lot but to someone like a Sam's Club who buys millions of tomatoes it's a huge difference. And you have to remember that picking the tomato is just one step in the process of getting it to the produce counter. If you paid everyone along with way $20 an hour, the cost of a single tomato would be much larger than it is today. The other thing about tomatoes (and produce in general) is that there's a huge amount of loss between the time they are picked and the time they are bought. I used to work in a produce department while in college. We'd sometimes throw away entire cases as soon as they came off the truck. For the remaining cases, a certain percentage wasn't fit to sell, so they would get tossed in the process of filling the display. Then a couple of times a day at least, the ones on display would be gone through and the ones started to look bad would get pulled.

    It wouldn't surprise me at all that for every tomato sold, at least one is tossed and that money has to be recouped in the price of the tomatoes that actually get sold.

  138. Re:LOL by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    I'll give you a hint: science has nothing to do with politics, and restricting access to science based on lack of support for Nazi policies makes him a neo-Nazi fucktard. And you a neo-Nazi sympathizer.

  139. Re:Easy to explain by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    LOL you thought that in those stories, they had purchased a license?! LMAO ROFLCOPTER

    No, 100% of the cases are pirating. And a venue's license for public performance doesn't extend into also being a license for product or political endorsement. You need a separate license to use something for promotion, you don't just pay the 10 cents like on a radio play of the actual song.

  140. Re:Easy to explain by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    There is nothing wrong with taking your ball and going home. If you don't want to play, don't.

    This is a different situation, though. It wasn't just his ball; it was a ball he had offered for the scientific community to play with under known, agreed rules. Then later he told them he was creating new rules, and scientists who are nice to people named Ahmed have to sit out. And so they told him no, nobody is going to borrow your ball at all anymore, take it and go home.

    And so many internet threads were simultaneously Godwin'd that a million Ceiling Cats were killed, sucked into the sudden void. F'kin' Nazis, trying to ruin the internet.

  141. Re:Easy to explain by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    He does not necessarily have the right to change license terms after people come to rely on the software, though. So it requires more than a simple reading, you'd need actual arguments to attempt to convince that there is some special reason he'd be able to alter those agreements after the fact.

    He has every right to restrict new access. But what he claimed to do, he can't actually do. But they have to withdraw anyways, to protect those new people.

    So I think here, he was an ass substantially beyond what his actual rights are, even in addition to violating the publishing terms that he had agreed to, and that is why the smackdown is not at all controversial. It really isn't obviously the case that you have a "right" to violate an agreement. It isn't enough simply to point to consequences as an additional right.

  142. Re:The strings are his to attach by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    You think its bad with a bunch of Turks around, visit any small town in north Florida for a couple weeks and you'll sure be glad they can't swim that far.

    And then consider: there are places in the world so awful, so dreadful, people actually risk their lives trying to sail to Florida.

    You think it is bad now, just wait a few more years to see what happens when these nazis rile up enough of their neighbors to win an election and we have to go burn them in the streets again, like in Dresden. Nazis never learn, and after a few decades their neighbors sometimes forget. Ooops, did you live in the same town as the Nazis? My advice, burn them individually before we have to come clean it up for you, because we use a big stick for that, not a scalpel.

  143. Re:The strings are his to attach by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    I live in San Antonio and we are extremely tolerant toward legal Mexican immigrants

    If you have to "tolerate" legitimate neighbors, you might not be as "tolerant" as you think you are.

  144. Re:LOL by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    If that was your point then I agree with you. Not that I'm a neo-Nazi fucktard but that restricting access for these reasons is pathetic.

    However people don't have a right to go to another country - against the wishes of those who live there - and impose their way on life on the people there. I'm an atheist. How do you think the Saudi's or Iranians would think if I went there and demanded that they respect my wishes and my way of life? People that immigrate to another country should respect the culture of that place.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  145. Re:The strings are his to attach by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There was this old guy who was a friend of my wife's family who was smart, and funny, and an all around reasonable guy -- unless the topic of hispanics came up. And then it was like he was a totally different person. He became a ranter, and everyone around him would try to change the subject.

    It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that he hated Hispanics. As far as he was concerned if you were born hispanic that automatically made you useless, human trash. For the life of me I couldn't figure out where he got that hatred. As it turns out I grew up in the same neighborhood he did, albeit forty years later, and only when I was a kid were there many hispanics moving in. He'd moved up in the world after WW2; he left the neighborhood and lived in a series of lily-white suburbs. So as far as I could tell he'd never even *known* any hispanics personally.

    And in the end I came to the conclusion that was the whole point. He didn't hate backs, or Poles, or Jews, or Catholics or Italians -- because he grew up in a neighborhood with all of those kinds of people, or served with them during the war. His opinions on hispanics was formed in a kind of vacuum. After that forty years of confirmation bias, unchecked by any actual firsthand experience turned what had been commonplace casual bigotry into full-blown batshit craziness.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  146. software not pc enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a legend,

    someone who has the balls to stand up for his people/country.

    Keep ranting on about your PC rubbish though, please. It's entertaining.

  147. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it wasn't just his ball, how was he able to change the licensing?

  148. Reminds me of grsecurity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of grsecurity and how they've closed source their stable patches even though it's a derivative work.

  149. Re:The strings are his to attach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting. I made this exact comment a couple years ago and was labeled racist. I grew up in what is now a hispanic neighborhood so naturally most people I know and friends are hispanic and they weren't too apply with all the undocumented folks moving in that they had to go through the whole formal process to get.

  150. Re:LOL by hene · · Score: 1

    And what do you do with immigrants that do not want to conform to the norms of the parent country?

    Most of the immigrants want to live decently. Even ones that come because of better welfare. Few of them already have high education, many of them are willing to learn. They are not only stealing jobs, but also creating new ones as they spend.

    These people do not differ from the people already living in whatever country. Sure there is some cultural differences but deep down we are all the same. It makes no sense except different kind of behavior when it comes to rules.

    Certain percentage is always hostile, this is also true among locals. There is no reason to think that different kind of control is needed.

    Sure these people need a lot of support at the beginning. The thing that slows down integration most is the idiocy and attitude of locals. If you are not friendly, do not except immigrants to respect you. Most of the problems with immigrants are caused by locals.

    In the long run, it does not matter why people came to the country. All people are workforce that increases GDP, at least statistically. Governments can think farther then one generation, grandchildren of immigrants will be well integrated and willing to want all the stuff we want and they need to work to get it.

  151. Re: LOL by silentcoder · · Score: 2

    I agree. So everybody of European descent in North America... if you would kindly board the boats in an orderly line...

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  152. Re: Easy to explain by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    Well its a good thing the actual figure is more like 0.000001% then. If it was any higher we would be extinct.
    Oh and EU law requires all member countries to accept all refugees. No exceptions. Germany is actually following the law. German people also overwhelmingly support this. When Munich police asked for supplies to help get refugees setted in just three hours they had received so much they had to beg people to stop donating !

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  153. Re:The strings are his to attach by dave420 · · Score: 1

    That is abject nonsense. The differences are minor, and pale into insignificance when you consider some people in "EU cultures" are far-left and some far-right, which is surely a far greater difference than just drinking a different kind of tea or dinner.

    I'm happy that you haven't had to move country to find a good life, but to condemn others for doing so is pathetic, as it's been a constant of human existence since we first climbed down from the trees.

  154. This won't work in the US by JoelKatz · · Score: 1

    His license restriction won't work in the United States. He says "USA has already been excluded from using Treefinder in February 2015," but his exclusion is ineffective in the United States. You can download his work without agreeing to any license, and under United States law, once you lawfully possess a copy of a protected work, you need neither a license nor permission to use it. 17 USC 106 lists the things you do need a license or permission to do, such as preparing derivative works or distributing copies. Mere use is absolutely not covered.

    And it would be somewhat silly if it worked any other way. Say you bought a book at the bookstore. Do you still need a license to read it? If so, where is that license? What are its terms?

    Under United States law, one who lawfully possesses a protected work is entitled to the ordinary use of that work.

  155. Labeling and dehumanizing 232 million "Illegals" by An+dochasac · · Score: 1
    By his definition, I am Gangolf Jobb's enemy.

    Sadly, his manifesto would be endorsed by the majority of people even in the countries he hates for welcoming immigrants. We freely allow the migration of money, but, but not people. Jobs don't have to climb a border wall, cross a sea or desert or even get a visa before leaving their home country.

    Countries such as the US treat corporations as people, except when it comes to national borders. We require a passport for living-breathing people but not for corporations. I've never heard of a corporation being held against its will for decades in a prison/refugee camp while its immigration status is being evaluated. Corporations needn't cross deserts or crowd onto rickety boats. They are seldom convicted of treason or Logan act violations regardless of the havoc and resentment they create as representatives of their homeland in other parts of the world.

    We don't bat an eye when a wealthy businessman distorts a third-world economy with their holiday home or an expat REIT vulture fund managed by former US VP Dan Quayle acquires and ruthlessly forecloses on hundreds of properties in Northern Ireland's 6 counties. Your portfolio now "owns" land that the Irish have struggled over for generations.

    Gangolf, I don't know what immigrants did to you to make you so angry. I am one of the 232 million people who live outside my birth country. If we were counted, 0th generation immigrants would be the 5th most populous country in the world, ahead of Brazil. But we are shunned and labelled as if refugee == immigrant == illegal. I'm truly surprised that you count the US as a country that is "too welcoming." As an insular isolationist, you might not be aware that US immigration policy has changed considerably since the waves of 19th and early 20th century immigrants. The US solved its 1990s boat people crisis by warehousing refugees at Gitmo. It's solving the central American crisis by building a wall and letting people die. "Illegal" is a good definition of these border policies which violate international law. Rest assured that I will never use your software until you understand more about the people who provide a convenient scapegoat for politicians and a convenient target for your hate.

  156. Re:The strings are his to attach by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Homeless people were not allowed to marry. People without a profession were not allowed to marry. People without their own business or without an estate were not allowed to marry etc.pp.

    This is sheer nonsense. You seem to be mixing it up with the right to vote or something.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  157. In the limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean BMC Evolutionary Biology over time will retract all papers they have published as software for various reasons becomes unavailable? What will the back catalogue look like in 50 years?

  158. Re:The strings are his to attach by r0kk3rz · · Score: 1

    For a single tomato, 20 cents a tomato vs. 8 cents doesn't seem like a lot but to someone like a Sam's Club who buys millions of tomatoes it's a huge difference. And you have to remember that picking the tomato is just one step in the process of getting it to the produce counter. If you paid everyone along with way $20 an hour, the cost of a single tomato would be much larger than it is today. The other thing about tomatoes (and produce in general) is that there's a huge amount of loss between the time they are picked and the time they are bought. I used to work in a produce department while in college. We'd sometimes throw away entire cases as soon as they came off the truck. For the remaining cases, a certain percentage wasn't fit to sell, so they would get tossed in the process of filling the display. Then a couple of times a day at least, the ones on display would be gone through and the ones started to look bad would get pulled. It wouldn't surprise me at all that for every tomato sold, at least one is tossed and that money has to be recouped in the price of the tomatoes that actually get sold.

    Things aren't typically sold at the cheapest possible price, they are sold at the price that generates the maximum amount of profit. Increased labor costs will change that price to profit curve slightly, but if they could get away with selling the produce at a much higher price and still sell the same volume then they would be doing that already.

    If the price is too high, for whatever reason, people will stop buying.

  159. Re:Open Source license except H1B shops have to pa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. I vote BSD license spun in that manner.

  160. Re:A discussion about this without virtue signalin by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    WTF is "virtue signaling"? Am I already behind by another new term?

    It's a meaningless right wing distractionary smear phrase like "SJW".

    If I say something like "racism is a bad thing" then the reactionaries know they can't actually disagree and say that racism is a good thing, so instead I get accused of showing off how right-on and non-racist I am.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  161. Re:LOL by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    Read up on how muslim immigrant views towards sharia law. Take a look at rape statistics. Don't take my word for it. Look it up. Spend some time. This is an important issue that can't just be glossed over.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  162. Re: LOL by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    You're conflating issues here and you know that. Empires expanded and contracted; wars of conquest were normal (good or bad). Agricultural people always saw uncultivated lands as unclaimed lands. This was true in China, Mesopotamia. Rome and the Americas.

    We now have a DIFFERENT situation and your conflating them and coming up with a snarky is sign of your not willing to deal with the problems at hand. We have existing countries, with borders, with laws and in which the state compels it's citizens to act in a certain way. Now - what you're saying is that government can pass zoning laws to regulate density but they cannot control who comes into the country? The illogic of your position should be clear.

    Now please, by pass the snarky comments, and confront the issue.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  163. Re:Easy to explain by delt0r · · Score: 2

    In this particular case. It doesn't matter because tree finder is out of date and shit. But it should be noted that he did this work while doing a PhD (which he refused to finish). Also not solo. I am not sure he is the sole legal copyright holder.
    br Yea i sort of am personally know the guy. Sort of. in a round about way. He has been a certified nut job for the ten years I was on his batshit insane mailing list.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  164. Re:The strings are his to attach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Recently, it's grown primarily because of the actions and crimes committed by a number of these migrants, as well as the increased strain on the far-more-generous social welfare systems of these countries (which as a corollary, appears to be leading to even higher taxation).

    In almost all cases, per capita crime rate is highest among people who were born in the country, who, in an ironic twist, point their fingers at immigrants.

    >If you think the Germans are vicious about it, you should take a gander at Nebelspalter [nebelspalter.ch] (a Swiss parody magazine) and look up the opinions there on the subject...

    By that logic, you should check out the opinion pieces published in the right-wing US "Intelligence Report" and see how incredibly racist the average American is.

    People who try to paint their personal views about entire countries like this, be it Japan or Sweden or whatever the other "hot"country of the month is, need some kind of reality check. "I hear that, in Japan, people are supper polite and crime rates are low. We should try the same thing in this country!"

  165. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #1/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

    Where'd I say it? I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

    See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there on OpenDNS free (I use it) + AD in my security guide.

    + Migrate hosts across a LAN (admin/scripts not GPO)-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ---

    I'm RIGHT on admin priv + hosts update (WFP/SFP)!

    "figured out why privilege escalation's a bad thing?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

    How else can I programmatically update it?

    ---

    "it requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

    Hypocrite later admits it!

    Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS it or it can't do its job fully like many security tools!

    Guess what?

    Don't NEED to run my program as ADMIN - I do it here manually vs. auto.

    ---

    "Needing admin privileges every time a program updates is poor design" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

    Users set it, not programmatic impersonation for autoupdate. You design zero & say what's what here?

    ---

    "90's technology to fight modern war" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

    Ozymandias/Watchmen per a namesake:

    "I resolved to use antiquities teachings" (hosts) "to our world today & began my path to conquest - Conquest not of men but of the evils that beset them: Fossil Fuels (antispyware), Oil (antivir), Nuclear Power (addons) are like a drug & you gentlemen along w/ foreign interests are the pushers"

    It works Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET said hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    Oliver Day (Symantec) too-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts' Admin hosts+recommends APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    APK

    P.S.=> Continued in #2/5... apk

  166. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #2/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Virus scanners/Adblock software don't need admin priv to update" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    AV does to remove threats - Adblock addons = VASTLY INFERIOR in abilities + efficiency vs. hosts as I've proven w/ noone proved me wrong to date!

    ---

    "your software does" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    No, hosts do due to WFP/SFP!

    ---

    "won't reveal your source code" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    I don't owe you it. I don't give away work to be stolen by others so it's misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

    ---

    "What's stopping you from pointing my bank's web site at your private server?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    I don't keep a server. You're a security guru (not - you create no ware for security & your forensics skills = non-existent): Put it in a VM, trace it using process monitor + wireshark to prove it (don't need code) & I only put in hardcodes of fav sites @ top of hosts for speed & reliabilty - you'd spot it easily & bulk of the file is sorted blocked known bad threat origins.

    ---

    "the possibility of being caught, which would be pretty hard to catch w/ such a large hosts file, as no one can go through it manually." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    See just above!

    ---

    "What are you going to do when Windows gets rid of the hosts file completely?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    Hasn't happened!

    ---

    "They have already taken steps to make it useless in Windows 10." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    It still works there!

    APK

    P.S.=> To be continued in part #3/5... apk

  167. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #3/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

    62 sources of good repute show + /. users say otherwise:

    Proven safe by 57 antivirus programs in its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Same for the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    Per VirScan its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news... /.'ers say my work is good too:

    "his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

    "I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

    "APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

    "his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

    ---

    You tried using Computer Associates another antivirus I turned over on false positives (1/8 over time) & they were caught in ACCOUNTING SCANDALS FRAUD http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

    Reputable source (not): They had to sell off their PC security suite too (crap fraud also) LOWERING the 'threat level' on THAT program (not my hosts file engine) TO ZERO!

    * YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERY ACCOUNT NOTED!

    APK

    P.S.=> To be continued in part #4/5... apk

  168. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #4/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "nowhere in there did you actually say what you are using that isn't a proxy/VPN" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Thursday November 12, 2015 @02:25PM (#50916751)

    I don't use proxies/VPN (or anonymous relays).

    "APK ... uses anonymous relays to get around the limits of posting anonymous" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @10:06AM (#50863109)

    I'm not stupid enough to do what YOU want (make me as stupid as an easily tracked for retrolling sheep like you).

    There's 3-4 ways to do what I do & those? Aren't them in your mistake accusations.

    What I do, like all I do = FAST + EFFICIENT, NO extra "moving parts" - less IS more = GOOD engineering, using what you have natively vs. "Bolting on 'MoAr'" stupidly & illogically.

    You're MCSE, networking admin 'god', & security guru (not) - figure it out, I gave clues - I'm NOT going to tell you!

    All you know is I do it WHEN combatting little scumbags like you that hide behind fake names online trolling me.

    It works, like all I do does with testimonials to that effect no less.

    "it's funny how little you know of security APK" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Thursday November 12, 2015 @02:25PM (#50916751)

    Funny how little you know in computing (no code, especially for security - I have it. You don't)

    (& you're stumped on an anti-troll technique I use too!)

    I've long ago done far more than you will or have in the art & science of computing! For security?

    CIS Tool took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... which you doubted & my layered security guides got me paid http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... & MILLIONS use it.

    APK

    P.S.=> To be continued in part #5/5... apk

  169. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #5/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "but rather than take my advise on various things, he feels that he is allowed to defame me by saying things he knows are not true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @10:06AM (#50863109)

    Hypocrite, I show you're projecting in my posts. What "advice" can you, an INFERIOR to me, like yourself give?

    "I have offered him advise on ways to improve what he does to reduce the feeling of icky his software - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @10:06AM (#50863109)

    I've shown /.'er saying differently - Show us you've done better: YOU can't - & you're "advising"? Talking out your ass on things you haven't done is what you're doing.

    "posting them so often that maybe, just maybe, someone will think they are true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @10:06AM (#50863109)

    Quotes of you are true! You can't keep your word as you're replying to me yet again + projecting what I prove YOU do (AD/DNS lie).

    "I don't have time for the Troll APK, and refuse to respond anymore to a post signed APK" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @04:27PM (#50858983)

    No troll. I protect users for free w/ a program that speeds them up, helps reliability, & even anonymity online w/ more abilities & efficiency than ANY other 1 solution doing more w/ less - do you? No.

    "Maybe I should change my signature again just to rile him up some more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @10:07AM (#50855451) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    "Rile" me? Childish sig bs is all you've got!

    "I have repeatedly refuted his assertions - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @10:06AM (#50863109)

    BS - See my last 4 posts here!

    APK

    P.S.=>

    "I never admitted you were right" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    You PROVE I AM FOR ME part #1-#5 of your "Greatest Hits Fails"... apk

  170. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #1/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

    Where'd I say it? I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

    See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there on OpenDNS free (I use it) + AD in my security guide.

    + Migrate hosts across a LAN (admin/scripts not GPO)-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ---

    I'm RIGHT on admin priv + hosts update (WFP/SFP)!

    "figured out why privilege escalation's a bad thing?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

    How else can I programmatically update it?

    ---

    "it requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

    Hypocrite later admits it!

    Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS it or it can't do its job fully like many security tools!

    Guess what?

    Don't NEED to run my program as ADMIN - I do it here manually vs. auto.

    ---

    "Needing admin privileges every time a program updates is poor design" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

    Users set it, not programmatic impersonation for autoupdate. You design zero & say what's what here?

    ---

    "90's technology to fight modern war" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

    Ozymandias/Watchmen per a namesake:

    "I resolved to use antiquities teachings" (hosts) "to our world today & began my path to conquest - Conquest not of men but of the evils that beset them: Fossil Fuels (antispyware), Oil (antivir), Nuclear Power (addons) are like a drug & you gentlemen along w/ foreign interests are the pushers"

    It works Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET said hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    Oliver Day (Symantec) too-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts' Admin hosts+recommends APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    APK

    P.S.=> Continued in #2/5... apk

  171. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #2/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Virus scanners/Adblock software don't need admin priv to update" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    AV does to remove threats - Adblock addons = VASTLY INFERIOR in abilities + efficiency vs. hosts as I've proven w/ noone proved me wrong to date!

    ---

    "your software does" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    No, hosts do due to WFP/SFP!

    ---

    "won't reveal your source code" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    I don't owe you it. I don't give away work to be stolen by others so it's misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

    ---

    "What's stopping you from pointing my bank's web site at your private server?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    I don't keep a server. You're a security guru (not - you create no ware for security & your forensics skills = non-existent): Put it in a VM, trace it using process monitor + wireshark to prove it (don't need code) & I only put in hardcodes of fav sites @ top of hosts for speed & reliabilty - you'd spot it easily & bulk of the file is sorted blocked known bad threat origins.

    ---

    "the possibility of being caught, which would be pretty hard to catch w/ such a large hosts file, as no one can go through it manually." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    See just above!

    ---

    "What are you going to do when Windows gets rid of the hosts file completely?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    Hasn't happened!

    ---

    "They have already taken steps to make it useless in Windows 10." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    It still works there!

    APK

    P.S.=> To be continued in part #3/5... apk

  172. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #3/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

    62 sources of good repute show + /. users say otherwise:

    Proven safe by 57 antivirus programs in its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Same for the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    Per VirScan its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news... /.'ers say my work is good too:

    "his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

    "I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

    "APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

    "his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

    ---

    You tried using Computer Associates another antivirus I turned over on false positives (1/8 over time) & they were caught in ACCOUNTING SCANDALS FRAUD http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

    Reputable source (not): They had to sell off their PC security suite too (crap fraud also) LOWERING the 'threat level' on THAT program (not my hosts file engine) TO ZERO!

    * YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERY ACCOUNT NOTED!

    APK

    P.S.=> To be continued in part #4/5... apk

  173. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #4/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "nowhere in there did you actually say what you are using that isn't a proxy/VPN" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Thursday November 12, 2015 @02:25PM (#50916751)

    I don't use proxies/VPN (or anonymous relays).

    "APK ... uses anonymous relays to get around the limits of posting anonymous" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @10:06AM (#50863109)

    I'm not stupid enough to do what YOU want (make me as stupid as an easily tracked for retrolling sheep like you).

    There's 3-4 ways to do what I do & those? Aren't them in your mistake accusations.

    What I do, like all I do = FAST + EFFICIENT, NO extra "moving parts" - less IS more = GOOD engineering, using what you have natively vs. "Bolting on 'MoAr'" stupidly & illogically.

    You're MCSE, networking admin 'god', & security guru (not) - figure it out, I gave clues - I'm NOT going to tell you!

    All you know is I do it WHEN combatting little scumbags like you that hide behind fake names online trolling me.

    It works, like all I do does with testimonials to that effect no less.

    "it's funny how little you know of security APK" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Thursday November 12, 2015 @02:25PM (#50916751)

    Funny how little you know in computing (no code, especially for security - I have it. You don't)

    (& you're stumped on an anti-troll technique I use too!)

    I've long ago done far more than you will or have in the art & science of computing! For security?

    CIS Tool took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... which you doubted & my layered security guides got me paid http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... & MILLIONS use it.

    APK

    P.S.=> To be continued in part #5/5... apk

  174. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #5/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "but rather than take my advise on various things, he feels that he is allowed to defame me by saying things he knows are not true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @10:06AM (#50863109)

    Hypocrite, I show you're projecting in my posts. What "advice" can you, an INFERIOR to me, like yourself give?

    "I have offered him advise on ways to improve what he does to reduce the feeling of icky his software - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @10:06AM (#50863109)

    I've shown /.'er saying differently - Show us you've done better: YOU can't - & you're "advising"? Talking out your ass on things you haven't done is what you're doing.

    "posting them so often that maybe, just maybe, someone will think they are true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @10:06AM (#50863109)

    Quotes of you are true! You can't keep your word as you're replying to me yet again + projecting what I prove YOU do (AD/DNS lie).

    "I don't have time for the Troll APK, and refuse to respond anymore to a post signed APK" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @04:27PM (#50858983)

    No troll. I protect users for free w/ a program that speeds them up, helps reliability, & even anonymity online w/ more abilities & efficiency than ANY other 1 solution doing more w/ less - do you? No.

    "Maybe I should change my signature again just to rile him up some more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @10:07AM (#50855451) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    "Rile" me? Childish sig bs is all you've got!

    "I have repeatedly refuted his assertions - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @10:06AM (#50863109)

    BS - See my last 4 posts here!

    APK

    P.S.=>

    "I never admitted you were right" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    You PROVE I AM FOR ME part #1-#5 of your "Greatest Hits Fails"... apk

  175. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not simply a matter of calling someone a neo-na%i f**ta7d

    Except when someone's being a neo-nazi fucktard. In that case, feel free to call them a neo-nazi fucktard.

  176. Re: Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always joke about this with my wife. She's an "anchor baby".

    Democrats are pro-immigration, because if we sent all the Mexicans back to Mexico, their immediate response is: "Then who's going to scrub my toilets and mow my lawn for peanuts?!" while telling us that they're no-longer than pro-slavery party.

  177. Re:The strings are his to attach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After that forty years of confirmation bias, unchecked by any actual firsthand experience turned what had been commonplace casual bigotry into full-blown batshit craziness.

    The sad unfortunate thing with confirmation bias, is that it can sometimes win even when checked by direct experiences. I've know several people that will rant about a specific ethnic or racial group, yet have close friends or highly valued coworkers from those groups. They just rationalize it by saying, "Well, that person isn't anything like the types I am complaining about, they're different than most people in the group I'm complaining about, so don't really count."

  178. Re:The strings are his to attach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

  179. Re:Easy to explain by lgw · · Score: 1

    OK, but the journal should never have published a paper describing it. As a sibling post pointed out, they wouldn't be the only journal that would only allow a paper describing software to be published if that software was open source.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  180. Re: LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually it's not really different at all. Nation-states with borders, social rules/norms, and laws all existed prior to European colonization of North America (and on both continents, no less).

  181. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want your statements to carry weight and not be easily dismissed you really should provide your OWN references. "It's true! Just look it up!" doesn't make for a very convincing argument.

  182. Re:LOL by hene · · Score: 1

    Yes, but I still believe that they are a minority and consider them as few bad apples in a batch. You can take any group of people and always some percentage of them are evil. This was exactly my point. Unfortunately they get to be on the rampage too long before they are caught, but they are caught sooner or later. I still encourage to catch as many criminals as possible before letting them in.

  183. Re: Easy to explain by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    I've seen plenty of them working. They harvest crops, work construction, pave roads or anything where they need cheap labor. If it weren't for the flood of people from South of the border I don't know how all this stuff would get done.

    And yet, somehow all of those things get done in states like Hawaii and Alaska, places where illegal immigration isn't a significant contributor to the workforce.

    The one bright spot to illegal immigration might be if the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour. Replacing whoever they can with illegal chump-change labor will save businesses a fortune. And I assume the pro-illegal-immigration crowd will think that's swell, because they'll be "doing the work Americans won't do" that they're always citing as justification for it.

  184. Re: Easy to explain by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    I saw one video of buses loading up in Turkey and it looked like a defeated army. That's just what Europe needs. I can't wait to see it.

  185. Re: Easy to explain by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    I noticed when I was vacationing in Hawaii (Oahu) that houses there cost a bitch load of money. A dump that would sell for 30 grand here was over 300 thousand there. I can't see how you could possibly live on Oahu at 15 dollars an hour.

  186. Re: LOL by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    True but the OP was talking about European immigrants displacing the Native American population and that was what I was referring to. Britain's actions in India was one of conquest; in North America conquest and colonization of an "unused" space.

    That is not what's occurring now. Unless you are insinuating that immigrants are a hostile force attempting to conquer or colonize the countries they are entering. (By the way - that is NOT my viewpoint. My parents were immigrants. My wife is an immigrant. Most of my friends are immigrants or children of immigrants.)

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  187. Re:The strings are his to attach by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    You should look at the definition of tolerance. You don't have to like something or someone to be tolerant. Hell, you can despise someone and still tolerate them. Tolerate means that even if I hate your fucking guts I just leave you alone and go along to get along and keep the peace. A person that does that is by definition "tolerant."

  188. Re:Easy to explain by delt0r · · Score: 1

    It was open source. He has retroactively changed the licence. Again, he probably can't even do that.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  189. I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR TEABAG IDIOTS by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Illegals come over our border without our permission.

    That is just an accusation in the form of a tautology. Of course they come over our border without our permission, that is why they are called illegals.

    They bring in drugs which ruin the lives of our citizens, some of them are rapists and murderers and continue their habits when they're here.

    As opposed to the citizens who are already ruining their lives with drugs sold by native citizens? Lol, I am so glad you are keen on saving us from dirty 'foreign' drugs. Also, rapists and murders? Really? Why not call em' godless commies too, since you are throwing around baseless labels.

    They use up welfare that our productive citizens worked hard to pay the taxes for-- and the illegal immigrants don't pay into this system, or if some do they don't pay nearly as much as a citizen does.

    Not sure how they do that without a SSN or birth certificate, but its your racist rant.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!