Mistakes happen, sure, but disregarding 700 safety regulations is a "mistake"? If not outright bribing, encouraging widespread ethics violations by throwing parties with gov't regulators is a mistake? This was policy and corporations don't make policy, people do, specifically those at the top.
The result of those policies is 11 people dead and billions of dollars in damage to people living on the Gulf Coast. That's nice that you think intent is more important than results here. But I want to fucking press charges.
Let's step back from this a bit. You believe the solution to a losing war is to start a war with a neighboring country? Historically, this is a bad idea.
One who has nuclear weapons to boot? The nuclear weapons are not bad because I think that the Pakistani gov't were use them against us, but who would take control of them once the gov't is destabilized by a war with America. That's what scares me the most about our current de-facto war with Pakistan. How long before a group, fed up with their gov't inability to protect them against imperialist threats, takes matters into their own hands.
I really hope that this was a poor choice of words and not meant to be as callous as it sounds. Since the cost is human lives, the only "sane benefit" that would balance that out is other human lives (national security).
Do people really still believe that having our soldiers in these places improves our national security? That it's not just the next "logical" step in creating an empire?
Science of the original law notwithstanding, the two arguments against are interesting. Having a state have more detailed regulations than the FCC is bad? Umm, that's how most laws/regulations should work.
I think it's true that it may cause people to choose one phone over another, but it's just a simple fact about the phone. The "hypocritical luddites" can have a phone that has less "radio radiation" and anyone that knows better can still buy whatever phone they like. It's the same argument used against putting GMO labels on food. If it's something the consumer wants to know about, even if misguided, who are we to tell them "it's not important". Yes it can be used to spread FUD and yes it has adverse effects, but in general giving the consumer more information about a product is a good thing for the market.
I guess I should have been more exact with my wording, but I didn't mean the legal definition of Public Domain. That's really a nit picky kind of argument.
This reminds me of a story I once heard(maybe a Fable, I'm not sure). There was a village that had the policy of euthanizing anyone that reached past a certain age so that the village would remain strong. A old woman was nearing this age when there appeared a threat to the village. A great conqueror descended upon them that they knew they could not defeat. The conqueror, wishing to take the village by peaceful means to save his men for other battles, sent a messenger proposing that he would give them 3 challenges. If they succeeded he would bypass their village. If they failed they must submit to his rule or be slaughtered. I don't remember the first two challenges, but needless to say the old woman's experience was called upon to pass them. The final challenge was to construct a rope of ash that could hold weight. Of course it was impossible for the weavers of the village to construct and no amount of the warriors' strength could press the ash together to form something cohesive. The village thought they were doomed so once again they went to the old lady because she had helped them through the previous two challenges. She told them to soak a normal rope is salt water and then burn it. This would caused the rope to retain its original shape and strength. The conqueror was confounded at the ashen rope, and the village was saved. From that point forward it let its citizens live to whatever ripe old age they wanted.
I've never tried it myself, but I wonder if this is an ancient form of constructing bucky tubes.
Can you suggest a Google search for such cases because I haven't heard of them. Well, I had thought this was THE case, but after reading more about it I think WP is right and people claiming that GPL APIs are somehow tainted are misinformed. I would read WP's argument above. At first I was skeptical, but he makes a pretty clear distinction between a derivative work and an external work that uses APIs.
On APIs
WordPress has many external APIs that spit out data. Interacting with these APIs does not put your code on the same level as core WordPress code. These APIs include Atom, RSS, AtomPub, and XML-RPC. Something that interacts with these APIs sits entirely outside of WordPress. Google Reader doesn’t become part of WordPress by accessing your feed, and MarsEdit doesn’t become part of WordPress when you use it to publish a post on your WordPress blog. These are separate applications, running separately, on separate codebases. All they are doing is communicating. Applications that interact with WordPress this way are separate works, and the author can license them in any way they have authority to do so.
This is a wholly different model of interaction than with themes. Themes are not standalone applications. They are scripts that become part of WordPress itself, and interact with WordPress on the same level that WordPress interacts with itself.
For the sake of argument let's pretend WP was a commercial product. Do you think you'd be able to create a theme for it and release it and sell it and not have it be considered a derivative work?
Not to come off as a troll (too late?), but it's interesting to see that kind of post on a site that consistently takes an anti-copyright, pro-piracy stance. In piracy articles, other people's work is free to trade. In GPL articles, other people's works' ability to be free traded suddenly should be protected.
The GPL is a legally enforceable way to be sure that your work will remain in the public domain, and that it will grow the public domain if used.
I don't think that's a very apt comparison. If Liberals were still claiming that Bush is likely to declare martial law in the future or did somehow secretly in the past then it would be an apt comparison.
I will agree that it's an overblown fear that exists in the Liberal population when a Republican president is in office. In that way it is similar to the Neo-Conservative fear that a Democratic president is going to somehow revoke Second Amendment rights.
Nono you've got your conspiracy theory all wrong. Big media can and always have been able to spin a story any way they like. That's part of free speech.
The real reason is that Disney wants to make a new movie about the life of Muhammad and wants protection from pairing him with an effeminate wise-cracking camel.
Crap, I just ordered some Droid X's for my upgrade. I wasn't planning on modding it right away so hopefully by the time the OS updates are no longer supported it will be moddable.
It didn't make it higher because most people recognize it as a manufactured controversy. Especially if, you know, you look at the context:
Bolden: I am here in the region - its sort of the first anniversary of President Barack Obama's visit to Cairo - and his speech there when he gave what has now become known as Obama's "Cairo Initiative" where he announced that he wanted this to become a new beginning of the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. When I became the NASA Administrator - before I became the NASA Administrator - he charged me with three things: One was that he wanted me to re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, that he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.
Question: Are you in some sort of diplomatic role... to win hearts and minds?
Bolden: No no, not at all. Its not a diplomatic anything. What it is - is that it is trying to expand our outreach so that we get more people who can contribute to the things that we do - the international Space Station is as great as it is because we have a conglomerate of about 15 plus nations who have contributed something to that partnership that has made it what it is today.
NASA trying to make the space program more international is only news because he used the word "Muslim".
Since most space efforts are international that's when.
Re:Strawman based on bastardized belief system
on
The End of Free
·
· Score: 1
If that were true, people would be obligated to justify why information wants to be free rather than be expensive
There are pressures for information to be both free and expensive, as stated in the original quote. From that perspective they are both "axiomatic truths". The position for free supporters is that it is better to have open information, if less of it, than to have more inaccessible information.
Obviously there is a balance to be struck, which is why most Open or Free supporters promote a 14 year copyright term for most works. There are those that argue a completely open system would be best for the public, but you're claiming they somehow miss that information is expensive, rather than choosing against it, and therefore worthy of contempt while similarly denying the other half of the premise.
You don't have to agree, but contempt is hardly justified; it just deafens you to rational counter-argument.
What does welfare or living if your parents have to do with having an opinion? The fact you put so much stock in an ad-hominem attack makes me glad you don't have mod points.
FTFR, I am afflicted with neither of those problems.
If most popular is best then you sure must not think very highly of humans; we're not even the most numerous mammal.
Most popular means most tolerable to the largest proportion of people, not best fit for your given situation.
Re:Strawman based on bastardized belief system
on
The End of Free
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'd say the movement for openness and freedom has moved a bit beyond the original quote and that any modern position could be called "bastardized" by that logic. Roger Clarke was stating the problem. People advocating open and/or free principals have chosen their priority in that dichotomy. Your contempt is hardly justified.
Slashdot Mirror
He said he did that multiple times in the summary and they just blew him off...
I don't buy it.
Mistakes happen, sure, but disregarding 700 safety regulations is a "mistake"? If not outright bribing, encouraging widespread ethics violations by throwing parties with gov't regulators is a mistake? This was policy and corporations don't make policy, people do, specifically those at the top.
The result of those policies is 11 people dead and billions of dollars in damage to people living on the Gulf Coast. That's nice that you think intent is more important than results here. But I want to fucking press charges.
Let's step back from this a bit. You believe the solution to a losing war is to start a war with a neighboring country? Historically, this is a bad idea.
One who has nuclear weapons to boot? The nuclear weapons are not bad because I think that the Pakistani gov't were use them against us, but who would take control of them once the gov't is destabilized by a war with America. That's what scares me the most about our current de-facto war with Pakistan. How long before a group, fed up with their gov't inability to protect them against imperialist threats, takes matters into their own hands.
Rather than a sane cost-to-benefit ratio.
I really hope that this was a poor choice of words and not meant to be as callous as it sounds. Since the cost is human lives, the only "sane benefit" that would balance that out is other human lives (national security).
Do people really still believe that having our soldiers in these places improves our national security? That it's not just the next "logical" step in creating an empire?
Science of the original law notwithstanding, the two arguments against are interesting. Having a state have more detailed regulations than the FCC is bad? Umm, that's how most laws/regulations should work.
I think it's true that it may cause people to choose one phone over another, but it's just a simple fact about the phone. The "hypocritical luddites" can have a phone that has less "radio radiation" and anyone that knows better can still buy whatever phone they like. It's the same argument used against putting GMO labels on food. If it's something the consumer wants to know about, even if misguided, who are we to tell them "it's not important". Yes it can be used to spread FUD and yes it has adverse effects, but in general giving the consumer more information about a product is a good thing for the market.
I guess I should have been more exact with my wording, but I didn't mean the legal definition of Public Domain. That's really a nit picky kind of argument.
This reminds me of a story I once heard(maybe a Fable, I'm not sure). There was a village that had the policy of euthanizing anyone that reached past a certain age so that the village would remain strong. A old woman was nearing this age when there appeared a threat to the village. A great conqueror descended upon them that they knew they could not defeat. The conqueror, wishing to take the village by peaceful means to save his men for other battles, sent a messenger proposing that he would give them 3 challenges. If they succeeded he would bypass their village. If they failed they must submit to his rule or be slaughtered. I don't remember the first two challenges, but needless to say the old woman's experience was called upon to pass them. The final challenge was to construct a rope of ash that could hold weight. Of course it was impossible for the weavers of the village to construct and no amount of the warriors' strength could press the ash together to form something cohesive. The village thought they were doomed so once again they went to the old lady because she had helped them through the previous two challenges. She told them to soak a normal rope is salt water and then burn it. This would caused the rope to retain its original shape and strength. The conqueror was confounded at the ashen rope, and the village was saved. From that point forward it let its citizens live to whatever ripe old age they wanted.
I've never tried it myself, but I wonder if this is an ancient form of constructing bucky tubes.
On APIs
WordPress has many external APIs that spit out data. Interacting with these APIs does not put your code on the same level as core WordPress code. These APIs include Atom, RSS, AtomPub, and XML-RPC. Something that interacts with these APIs sits entirely outside of WordPress. Google Reader doesn’t become part of WordPress by accessing your feed, and MarsEdit doesn’t become part of WordPress when you use it to publish a post on your WordPress blog. These are separate applications, running separately, on separate codebases. All they are doing is communicating. Applications that interact with WordPress this way are separate works, and the author can license them in any way they have authority to do so.
This is a wholly different model of interaction than with themes. Themes are not standalone applications. They are scripts that become part of WordPress itself, and interact with WordPress on the same level that WordPress interacts with itself.
For the sake of argument let's pretend WP was a commercial product. Do you think you'd be able to create a theme for it and release it and sell it and not have it be considered a derivative work?
Not to come off as a troll (too late?), but it's interesting to see that kind of post on a site that consistently takes an anti-copyright, pro-piracy stance. In piracy articles, other people's work is free to trade. In GPL articles, other people's works' ability to be free traded suddenly should be protected.
The GPL is a legally enforceable way to be sure that your work will remain in the public domain, and that it will grow the public domain if used.
That and you can only take them to a very limited number of carriers in the U.S.
I don't think that's a very apt comparison. If Liberals were still claiming that Bush is likely to declare martial law in the future or did somehow secretly in the past then it would be an apt comparison.
I will agree that it's an overblown fear that exists in the Liberal population when a Republican president is in office. In that way it is similar to the Neo-Conservative fear that a Democratic president is going to somehow revoke Second Amendment rights.
Nono you've got your conspiracy theory all wrong. Big media can and always have been able to spin a story any way they like. That's part of free speech.
The real reason is that Disney wants to make a new movie about the life of Muhammad and wants protection from pairing him with an effeminate wise-cracking camel.
So vote third party.
You see the entrenchment of the two parties as a problem, so do something about it. And no, refusing to vote is not "doing something."
Now where's my grant money?
Crap, I just ordered some Droid X's for my upgrade. I wasn't planning on modding it right away so hopefully by the time the OS updates are no longer supported it will be moddable.
Bolden: I am here in the region - its sort of the first anniversary of President Barack Obama's visit to Cairo - and his speech there when he gave what has now become known as Obama's "Cairo Initiative" where he announced that he wanted this to become a new beginning of the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. When I became the NASA Administrator - before I became the NASA Administrator - he charged me with three things: One was that he wanted me to re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, that he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.
Question: Are you in some sort of diplomatic role ... to win hearts and minds?
Bolden: No no, not at all. Its not a diplomatic anything. What it is - is that it is trying to expand our outreach so that we get more people who can contribute to the things that we do - the international Space Station is as great as it is because we have a conglomerate of about 15 plus nations who have contributed something to that partnership that has made it what it is today.
NASA trying to make the space program more international is only news because he used the word "Muslim".
Since most space efforts are international that's when.
If that were true, people would be obligated to justify why information wants to be free rather than be expensive
There are pressures for information to be both free and expensive, as stated in the original quote. From that perspective they are both "axiomatic truths". The position for free supporters is that it is better to have open information, if less of it, than to have more inaccessible information.
Obviously there is a balance to be struck, which is why most Open or Free supporters promote a 14 year copyright term for most works. There are those that argue a completely open system would be best for the public, but you're claiming they somehow miss that information is expensive, rather than choosing against it, and therefore worthy of contempt while similarly denying the other half of the premise.
You don't have to agree, but contempt is hardly justified; it just deafens you to rational counter-argument.
I'm just amazed that it has a pocket!
Hopefully the appearance can be approved over time and people won't protest the low wages in bacteria "sweat shops"... err, "cytoplasm complexes"?
What does welfare or living if your parents have to do with having an opinion? The fact you put so much stock in an ad-hominem attack makes me glad you don't have mod points.
FTFR, I am afflicted with neither of those problems.
If most popular is best then you sure must not think very highly of humans; we're not even the most numerous mammal.
Most popular means most tolerable to the largest proportion of people, not best fit for your given situation.
I'd say the movement for openness and freedom has moved a bit beyond the original quote and that any modern position could be called "bastardized" by that logic. Roger Clarke was stating the problem. People advocating open and/or free principals have chosen their priority in that dichotomy. Your contempt is hardly justified.
Depends if it's a Tuesday.
They have found deep water oil plumes that are not floating... It was on the news a little while ago.
You mean the PanCakeBatCave?
aaaaaand it's gone.