Despots always try to control the flow of information. I'm pretty sure that Nazi Germany illegalized all the then current forms of sharing information such as radio, typewriters, mimeograph machines and if practical pencil and paper.
Hunter gatherer societies had/have the most leisure time of any society often only having to work a few hours a day. Their weaknesses include others taking their riches and over-population where the land can no longer support the population. The reason the economy has grown so much over the last few hundred years has been due to taking those hunter gatherers riches. As long as there is more to steal, the longer you can have growth. For example the richest economy, America has based most of its existence on stealing resources and labour. Even today they invest most of their profits on a war machine to make sure they can take others resources for a token payment.
'tis bedtime here so for now all I can say is we're using different dictionaries and need to give thought about our words as we obviously have different meanings for common words. Anyways good-night and if I'm not too burnt out tomorrow I'll continue the conversation as it is interesting as long as not taking things as flame-bait.
It's a problem with language, especially English which has evolved in different directions in different cultures. Strictly speaking conservative just means not wanting change and progressive means embracing change. Thing is change encompasses a lot. The libertarians perhaps should disassociate themselves so much to the Conservatives as the Conservatives actions (and I remember back to Nixon) have not been small government and they might get more support if they embraced more socialism. And by socialism I mean things like credit unions instead of banks, co-ops in many situations especially infrastructure and perhaps insurance (mutual funds) and employee owned businesses, all socialist ideas without big government.
Gee, we're having the same problem just to your south. Maybe they're caused by people who share a common ideology; one that demands ever-more centralized government control over ever-more aspects of everyone's lives, fewer individual rights and liberties, ever-more monitoring and censorship of all voice/data communications, and ever-more loss of freedoms, jobs, and massive redistribution of wealth under Utopian "social justice" and "economic justice" banners that are the new-speak for Marxist-style ideologies involving class warfare and wealth-redistribution to divide, inflame, incite, and distract the population and destabilize the society.
While you're right about this government demanding ever-more centralized government, removing individual rights and liberties, censorship and massive redistribution of wealth, I don't don't know how Utopian "social justice and "economic justice" and Marxist-style ideologies come into it. We're talking about the most non-progressive, anti-liberal government Canada has ever had, so of course they're removing freedoms, introducing censorship and massively transferring wealth from the middle class to the 0.1% and various foreigners Much of what they're doing is in the name of reducing government power, but the powers they are removing are the checks and balances. They believe in big government for one reason, to trample on peoples rights, while trumpeting that because they are conservative they're for small government. You just have to look at how they squandered the budget surplus that Canada had when they came into power and the fact that these assholes who claim to be fiscally conservative have put us back into the hole while cutting out the parts of Canada that made us Canada. Modern Conservatism, an idea so good that if you don't agree, you'll go to jail or worse.
The real problem isn't conservatism vs progressiveness, it's assholes who want power for themselves and they come in all political colours.
I had a '85 Nissan diesel pickup. Given a big hill or a small hill + ether for starting, and disconnecting the fuel pump shutoff solenoid, it would run without needing any electricity. Mechanical fuel pump and being a diesel, no need for spark.
I agree, but traditionally polygamy is frowned upon, the legislature has no interest in changing the laws and so far the only argument that has been made before the courts is that banning it infringes on freedom of religion which was thrown out as freedom of religion does not include the freedom to be abusive or coercive. If someone makes a good argument about polygamy and/or polyandry based on freedom of association the courts should throw out the law against polygamy as unconstitutional but so far only religious nuts have argued for polygamy. Gay marriage is legal here partly due to the courts ruling that it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation (8 out of 10 provinces had the courts rule it was legal no matter what the feds said and when Parliament legalized it they first asked the Supreme Court about constitutionality. The Court ruled it was constitutional, the Federal government could pass a law legalizing it but due to freedom of religion, churches can not be forced to perform same sex marriages)
There are lots of examples, read the article on polyandry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry Like polygamy, it is only stable in some situations but quite a few societies have experimented.
It came up recently in the Canadian courts. The court left the law as is as it was clearly shown, at least in the case of the quasi-Mormon group that the case was about, that it was abusive to the young women who were forced to participate in the polygamous marriages. As a side issue it was also abusive to the young males who were exiled from the group to make sure that only a few dominant males got all the females. In a society with roughly equal numbers of male and female, polygamy (and polyandry) does not scale up very well.
Not exactly. Marriage is one male and N females though, and N == 1 is a fairly common number. What can be said though, and I will be modded into oblivion again are these:
1. Until a hundred years ago my definition above of the word 'marriage' as the union of a male and one or more females in a family unit for purposes of reproduction and inheritence was the only one anyone had ever associated with the word and the similar words found in every human tongue. Until fifty yers ago no mainstream thinker was using the word any other way, although the more 'out there' progressives and homosexual activists were.
The same can be said about the Apple II, quite open and expendable. Unluckily even back then Apple went nuts with patents, suing and preventing any Apple service places working on clones (and there were a lot of them for a while including clean room implementations such as the Lazer) as well as Jobs killing the II in favour of the Mac. One of the sad things was that towards the end of the II it was much superiour then the Mac. Huge base of software, expendable when Jobs was pushing that a computer should be like a toaster, had a colour display when Jobs was preaching that users didn't need colour, more stable as the Mac toolbox had been rewritten for the GS with many bug fixes, and (with an accelerator) faster.
Not only that - it assumes that no one fucks up. Nuclear war was avoided for two reasons: both the USSR and the US were rational actors, and on both sides there were people who would rather die in a nuclear attack than press the button that started the nuclear war.
Actually only the USSR were close to rational. The USA put nukes on the USSR's borders (Turkey at least) so the USSR put nukes on the USA's borders and the Americans went nuts, almost starting WWIII. The Russians were sane enough to back down rather then destroy the world. America could never understand that putting nukes on your enemies borders was nuts and freaking out about tit for tat was even more nuts. I've always felt more threatened by America then any other country. They voted in Reagan (and later GWB) and made him a saint when he was a religious nut who was prepared to destroy civilization if he didn't get his way.
War of 1812, General Hull stated that Canadians were welcome to the land of the free but if they were allied with Indians, then they will be annihilated. (thus we burnt down Washington just to prove to Jefferson that Americans couldn't just walk into Canada and the Indians were very eager to ally with us as they knew what America meant by freedom) Of course the main motivation of the Revolution was the evil tyrant King stating that all his subjects were equal and theft of land was wrong. (note that King George III had about the same power as Elizabeth II has yet he got all the blame)
Why not mod up an AC? Mod points are for making comments more visible or hiding the cleanmypc guy and AC needs mod points more as they start at zero and lots of people browse at a higher threshold.
America had no problem taking Americans of Japanese descents property during the war as well and currently has no problem taking peoples property now (look up civil forfeiture).
In that case, I am not sure where the threshold of not being able to build from source exists. If I release a 400k line GPL'd project (some 3k source files scattered over 50 directories) _without_ any Makefiles, configure, makefile.am or any of the supporting autotools input, could anyone except for me really compile it from source?
The GPL (at least v2) requires that you include build scripts etc so you would need to at least include configure.am and the makefile.am files, probably also the autogen.sh file that is used to generate configure and the Makefiles and/or instructions on how to do this. Most GPL software that is downloaded from repositories require you to run the autotools yourself.
I think the implicit question that has been danced about but not really addressed is whether just plain old source, which is effectively the same as out-dated, unmaintained autotools (or other build) support is really compliant with the GPL. Is it legal for me to improve the source and publish, as obviously required, but at the same time, not publish updated autotools files?
Of course old source that depends on old unmaintained autotools is compliant. The most notable example of up to date source that uses old unmaintained autoconf 2.13 is Mozilla. You want to build Firefox after hacking configure.in, you need autoconf 2.13. The thing is that it should be documented, even if only in configure.in
GSView (Ghostscript frontend) has always done this, their binaries have a fairly minor nag screen at startup. If you pay you get the binaries without the nag screen. The software uses its own license that requires source code to be distributed if you modify it and distribute a binary but it restricts commercially selling the binaries. You can recompile it yourself to get rid of the nag screen but it takes a little searching of the source to find the preference to turn off the nag screen. While not GPL compatible, it's not too bad of a license as the source is always available.
I saw some pamphlets from the late 18th century that said basically the same thing except it was that society was soft on criminals because they only hung them and if they were flogged to death the crime rate would go way down. Truth is you get a high crime rate from poor desperate people. Criminals are usually criminals from compulsive behaviour or because they don't belief they'll get caught so the threat of punishment doesn't help.
Perhaps compare Singapore against Iceland where all they do is use timeouts, or Monaco as they're all quite small countries. Austria as a bigger country seems to have about the same crime rate while Japan has a smaller rate. Of course it is hard to compare as different things are considered crimes in different countries. The US seems to be the exception to the rule when comparing crime rates in developed countries, with a very high crime rate compared to similar countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Despots always try to control the flow of information. I'm pretty sure that Nazi Germany illegalized all the then current forms of sharing information such as radio, typewriters, mimeograph machines and if practical pencil and paper.
If you aren't ashamed of something or doing something that shouldn't be done, then why are these people so concerned
Everyone shits but are concerned about privacy. Most everyone masturbates, but want to do it in privacy.
Seriously, why are people so afraid of people finding out who they actually are?
Everyone thinks they are different. Some are and the rest of us have been convinced that we're different and have things to be ashamed of.
Those who fail either die or learn to live off scraps.
Or evolve to eat nice plump rich long pig.
Hunter gatherer societies had/have the most leisure time of any society often only having to work a few hours a day. Their weaknesses include others taking their riches and over-population where the land can no longer support the population.
The reason the economy has grown so much over the last few hundred years has been due to taking those hunter gatherers riches. As long as there is more to steal, the longer you can have growth. For example the richest economy, America has based most of its existence on stealing resources and labour. Even today they invest most of their profits on a war machine to make sure they can take others resources for a token payment.
The monopoly business creates a government that will maintain its monopoly.
There's tenfour (fork of Firefox) if you want a newer browser on your ppc Mac. http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/
'tis bedtime here so for now all I can say is we're using different dictionaries and need to give thought about our words as we obviously have different meanings for common words. Anyways good-night and if I'm not too burnt out tomorrow I'll continue the conversation as it is interesting as long as not taking things as flame-bait.
It's a problem with language, especially English which has evolved in different directions in different cultures. Strictly speaking conservative just means not wanting change and progressive means embracing change. Thing is change encompasses a lot.
The libertarians perhaps should disassociate themselves so much to the Conservatives as the Conservatives actions (and I remember back to Nixon) have not been small government and they might get more support if they embraced more socialism. And by socialism I mean things like credit unions instead of banks, co-ops in many situations especially infrastructure and perhaps insurance (mutual funds) and employee owned businesses, all socialist ideas without big government.
Gee, we're having the same problem just to your south. Maybe they're caused by people who share a common ideology; one that demands ever-more centralized government control over ever-more aspects of everyone's lives, fewer individual rights and liberties, ever-more monitoring and censorship of all voice/data communications, and ever-more loss of freedoms, jobs, and massive redistribution of wealth under Utopian "social justice" and "economic justice" banners that are the new-speak for Marxist-style ideologies involving class warfare and wealth-redistribution to divide, inflame, incite, and distract the population and destabilize the society.
While you're right about this government demanding ever-more centralized government, removing individual rights and liberties, censorship and massive redistribution of wealth, I don't don't know how Utopian "social justice and "economic justice" and Marxist-style ideologies come into it. We're talking about the most non-progressive, anti-liberal government Canada has ever had, so of course they're removing freedoms, introducing censorship and massively transferring wealth from the middle class to the 0.1% and various foreigners
Much of what they're doing is in the name of reducing government power, but the powers they are removing are the checks and balances. They believe in big government for one reason, to trample on peoples rights, while trumpeting that because they are conservative they're for small government. You just have to look at how they squandered the budget surplus that Canada had when they came into power and the fact that these assholes who claim to be fiscally conservative have put us back into the hole while cutting out the parts of Canada that made us Canada.
Modern Conservatism, an idea so good that if you don't agree, you'll go to jail or worse.
The real problem isn't conservatism vs progressiveness, it's assholes who want power for themselves and they come in all political colours.
The quadrillion bacteria happily living in your guts would disagree, and depending on the type of their population they'll even change your behaviour.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110517110315.htm
I had a '85 Nissan diesel pickup. Given a big hill or a small hill + ether for starting, and disconnecting the fuel pump shutoff solenoid, it would run without needing any electricity. Mechanical fuel pump and being a diesel, no need for spark.
I agree, but traditionally polygamy is frowned upon, the legislature has no interest in changing the laws and so far the only argument that has been made before the courts is that banning it infringes on freedom of religion which was thrown out as freedom of religion does not include the freedom to be abusive or coercive.
If someone makes a good argument about polygamy and/or polyandry based on freedom of association the courts should throw out the law against polygamy as unconstitutional but so far only religious nuts have argued for polygamy.
Gay marriage is legal here partly due to the courts ruling that it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation (8 out of 10 provinces had the courts rule it was legal no matter what the feds said and when Parliament legalized it they first asked the Supreme Court about constitutionality. The Court ruled it was constitutional, the Federal government could pass a law legalizing it but due to freedom of religion, churches can not be forced to perform same sex marriages)
There are lots of examples, read the article on polyandry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
Like polygamy, it is only stable in some situations but quite a few societies have experimented.
It came up recently in the Canadian courts. The court left the law as is as it was clearly shown, at least in the case of the quasi-Mormon group that the case was about, that it was abusive to the young women who were forced to participate in the polygamous marriages. As a side issue it was also abusive to the young males who were exiled from the group to make sure that only a few dominant males got all the females.
In a society with roughly equal numbers of male and female, polygamy (and polyandry) does not scale up very well.
Their religion says to convert all people to their religion. Funny thing is their God is supposed to be all powerful but he sure is insecure.
> Marriage is for a man and a woman.
Not exactly. Marriage is one male and N females though, and N == 1 is a fairly common number. What can be said though, and I will be modded into oblivion again are these:
1. Until a hundred years ago my definition above of the word 'marriage' as the union of a male and one or more females in a family unit for purposes of reproduction and inheritence was the only one anyone had ever associated with the word and the similar words found in every human tongue. Until fifty yers ago no mainstream thinker was using the word any other way, although the more 'out there' progressives and homosexual activists were.
There are societies that practice polyandry, one female and N males where N can be greater then 1. Tibet comes to mind, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_Tibet
The same can be said about the Apple II, quite open and expendable. Unluckily even back then Apple went nuts with patents, suing and preventing any Apple service places working on clones (and there were a lot of them for a while including clean room implementations such as the Lazer) as well as Jobs killing the II in favour of the Mac. One of the sad things was that towards the end of the II it was much superiour then the Mac. Huge base of software, expendable when Jobs was pushing that a computer should be like a toaster, had a colour display when Jobs was preaching that users didn't need colour, more stable as the Mac toolbox had been rewritten for the GS with many bug fixes, and (with an accelerator) faster.
Not only that - it assumes that no one fucks up. Nuclear war was avoided for two reasons: both the USSR and the US were rational actors, and on both sides there were people who would rather die in a nuclear attack than press the button that started the nuclear war.
Actually only the USSR were close to rational. The USA put nukes on the USSR's borders (Turkey at least) so the USSR put nukes on the USA's borders and the Americans went nuts, almost starting WWIII. The Russians were sane enough to back down rather then destroy the world. America could never understand that putting nukes on your enemies borders was nuts and freaking out about tit for tat was even more nuts.
I've always felt more threatened by America then any other country. They voted in Reagan (and later GWB) and made him a saint when he was a religious nut who was prepared to destroy civilization if he didn't get his way.
War of 1812, General Hull stated that Canadians were welcome to the land of the free but if they were allied with Indians, then they will be annihilated. (thus we burnt down Washington just to prove to Jefferson that Americans couldn't just walk into Canada and the Indians were very eager to ally with us as they knew what America meant by freedom)
Of course the main motivation of the Revolution was the evil tyrant King stating that all his subjects were equal and theft of land was wrong. (note that King George III had about the same power as Elizabeth II has yet he got all the blame)
Why not mod up an AC? Mod points are for making comments more visible or hiding the cleanmypc guy and AC needs mod points more as they start at zero and lots of people browse at a higher threshold.
America had no problem taking Americans of Japanese descents property during the war as well and currently has no problem taking peoples property now (look up civil forfeiture).
In that case, I am not sure where the threshold of not being able to build from source exists. If I release a 400k line GPL'd project (some 3k source files scattered over 50 directories) _without_ any Makefiles, configure, makefile.am or any of the supporting autotools input, could anyone except for me really compile it from source?
The GPL (at least v2) requires that you include build scripts etc so you would need to at least include configure.am and the makefile.am files, probably also the autogen.sh file that is used to generate configure and the Makefiles and/or instructions on how to do this. Most GPL software that is downloaded from repositories require you to run the autotools yourself.
I think the implicit question that has been danced about but not really addressed is whether just plain old source, which is effectively the same as out-dated, unmaintained autotools (or other build) support is really compliant with the GPL. Is it legal for me to improve the source and publish, as obviously required, but at the same time, not publish updated autotools files?
Of course old source that depends on old unmaintained autotools is compliant. The most notable example of up to date source that uses old unmaintained autoconf 2.13 is Mozilla. You want to build Firefox after hacking configure.in, you need autoconf 2.13.
The thing is that it should be documented, even if only in configure.in
GSView (Ghostscript frontend) has always done this, their binaries have a fairly minor nag screen at startup. If you pay you get the binaries without the nag screen. The software uses its own license that requires source code to be distributed if you modify it and distribute a binary but it restricts commercially selling the binaries. You can recompile it yourself to get rid of the nag screen but it takes a little searching of the source to find the preference to turn off the nag screen.
While not GPL compatible, it's not too bad of a license as the source is always available.
I saw some pamphlets from the late 18th century that said basically the same thing except it was that society was soft on criminals because they only hung them and if they were flogged to death the crime rate would go way down.
Truth is you get a high crime rate from poor desperate people. Criminals are usually criminals from compulsive behaviour or because they don't belief they'll get caught so the threat of punishment doesn't help.
Perhaps compare Singapore against Iceland where all they do is use timeouts, or Monaco as they're all quite small countries. Austria as a bigger country seems to have about the same crime rate while Japan has a smaller rate. Of course it is hard to compare as different things are considered crimes in different countries.
The US seems to be the exception to the rule when comparing crime rates in developed countries, with a very high crime rate compared to similar countries.