Strange, I can't seem to find where I stated his answer was clear and concise, though I do remember saying "if you try using that brain of yours for something other than snarky comments you will quickly find he gave a very concise, logical answer."
Sorry, but you walked right into that one. In any case, I agree with you that by saving this money we could then spend it on our own space programs, I suppose I myself wasn't clear enough for a portion of the readers here on that aspect of the issue.
Haha, I would definitely support the creation of a trollslayer mod, that's pretty much my hobby here on Slashdot. Also, thx for the kind words Kintar:-)
I can see why you might not be satisfied with the answer to that particular question (though I still believe he answered the rest pretty well), but in his defense he did explicitly say that patent reform was not a topic he was particularly conversant in ("I do not have a plan for patent reform yet"), and I'm confident that if he thinks this is a topic of significant interest to the country then he will do his homework and come up with the kind of explicit answer you were looking for, i.e. "We should reduce copyright terms back to around the original limits, somewhere in the ballpark of 20 or 30 years". Based on Paul's strong opposition to corporate welfare, I think you can rest assured this is pretty close to the kind of conclusion he will come to himself. You've gotta hand it to him, on the one question he was pretty ambiguous about, he explicitly said it's because he hasn't looked into it much, and STILL gave an (admittedly ambiguous) answer inline with most of our views.
I don't really see how that's the case, both answers seemed pretty compatible... perhaps if you had given a reason or two we could discuss this further. Your lack of details notwithstanding, let me try to explain why they are not in conflict:
1: He basically stated that by discontinuing our subsidization of other countries through military aid, they will quickly find they have a lot less money to blow on costly, competitive space plans. Beyond that, it's not our business to try to interfere with other countries' efforts to build a space infrastructure. We ought to try to improve our own, of course.
2: He said he believes we all deserve straightforward, concise answers to our questions.
I see no conflict... I assume you intended to say that his answer to question 1 was somehow not a straight answer, but I contend that if you try using that brain of yours for something other than snarky comments you will quickly find he gave a very concise, logical answer to question 1 while explicitly avoiding buzzwords and fluff.
I don't see why... "typical" politicians avoid making commitments altogether. Ron Paul stated his stance on the issues as concisely as possible (explicitly AVOIDING the use of buzzwords and filler), and took a position on each one of them. I now know precisely what his commitment is to each of these topics, even if he didn't outline a complete, step-by-step plan on how to implement each one of them. I think these answers were completely sufficient.
...have you ever actually met? My guess is that you're either lying, or you don't know any. I am a Libertarian, and I have been heavily involved in non-profit and charity work for over 8 years (I'm 22 and lower-middle class), not for personal gain or status, but because I feel a strong sense of responsibility for the well-being of the less-fortunate. Of all the Libertarians that I know well enough to make an accurate assessment, I personally don't know ANY who are primarily motivated by selfishness, stinginess, or greed (though I'm sure there are some). There are uncharitable and selfish people who subscribe to all categories of political thought, but if you honestly think Libertarians are any more selfish than any other group, I think you might be mistaking somebody saying "I don't believe we should be taxed to do this because the government is inefficient and corrupt" as saying "I don't want to pay for this." So, either you're a douche for lying, or you're a douche for not understanding the most basic tenets of the political belief system you are attacking. In either case, there's no need to apologize, I know you don't know any better, and I forgive you anyway.
I really hope that, if a succussful gene therapy program is ever discovered to reverse or prevent the development of autism, the medical industry will refuse to offer it in any form other than a thimerisol-preserved shot as the ultimate fuck-you to all these people who have wasted so much of everybody's time and money.
In my view...
That's right, it's his view. That is, it's an opinion. Nothing he says is "fact", nor is it backed up by fact, or even a convincing argument. Why does he get +5 insightful? Do I get +5 insightful in a Linux thread for saying something like:
"Linux is the absolute best operating system. It's open source, making it super awesome. Bill Gates doesn't own it, so it's even more awesome. I know a large number of geeks and am fond of many of them, and they all like Linux, therefore it cannot be anything but the absolute bestest operating system evar. I want evil corporations to keep their money grubbing hands off Linux!"
No, I do not get +5 insightful... because that is an opinion. There are no "facts" per se, and I really give nothing to back it up, except for a superficially convincing collection of personal anecdotes, which actually add nothing to the discussion at all.
He didn't add anything to any abortion argument that has ever taken place in the history of the universe, except possibly some arguments in the Bible Belt. Please mod him, and me, -1 offtopic. The end.
FWIW, you're right, the government should keep their hands off a woman's body. That's my opinion.
It really is ludicrous to think they are doing this to try to strike against FOSS in some way... I'm sure that if they could legally bury this information without setting themselves up for a future stock price crash when they are sued, then they absolutely would. This is NOT the kind of thing a company puts in an investor report because they want to make a statement. This is the kind of thing CEO's would try so hard to avoid and bury that they'd end up in jail.
People can organize to do things without resorting to theft. You've partly got me on the issue of roads, for some infrastructure the ideal balance of efficiency and ease of implementation is at the national level. Once it is built, however, why can't it be maintained by local government, paid for by user fees? That is both the easiest AND the most efficient solution. On the schooling issue, you are clearly a product of public education. Even if you WANT schools to be completely public, then all of human history up to the present day shows this is best done at the local level, not the federal level. Believe me, we don't need a federal government that's even 20% of the size it is today. Grow some balls and realize that you actually can survive without a corrupt, bloated bureaucracy telling you how to live your life and spend your money... at gunpoint.
I have to agree with most of what you said, except for one statement: "Subjectivity is the root reason for governments to exist"... and I even agree with the part of the sentence after that statement. I still think the root REASONS government exist are the ones I postulated... over time, the government changes its purpose to suit its own needs, as you stated, and that is an unfortunate fact. However, saying that government exists to become corrupted by compromise and greed until it falls and is replaced is simply not true. That's like saying the reason ice cubes exist is because they melt. Yes they melt, but we make them to absorb heat. Melting is a gradual, unavoidable result of this, but when they are all melted, do we say "great, now that they're melted, we should strive for more puddles of water"? No, we say "dump out that water, let's make some new ice cubes".
I'd say that governments should exist for the protection of the populace from external threats (other nations), and the protection of their rights and freedoms (for example, if someone were to try to murder you, or if some group were to try to overthrow the government to set up a new government which was more tyrannical). The government should then have to make a choice between "no taxes" and "some taxes", striving for the optimal balance of "just enough taxes to do the two jobs previously listed". It would seem that the founding fathers agree with me, based on some of the evidence they've left behind (Constitution, Federalist Papers, Bill of Rights, etc.).
Sorry buddy, I think you're pigeonholing all the founders into a category of men who only cared about taxation without representation and nothing more... but lets ignore the fact that the majority of the founding fathers were individualists and against large government in ADDITION to disagreeing with taxation without representation, and take on your argument as if all your premises were true. Sorry, but when you take MY money, apply it to YOUR favorite pet programs that I feel are not worth the money or a detriment to myself and the country, then guess what... I am not being represented in government adequately for the taxes I pay. Dumbass.
Incidentally, a democracy is not what we have, and thank God. Before I let you go, ever hear of the tyranny of the majority? 51% of the people who are mildly in support of something can screw over 49% of the people who are vehemently against it. Just because you and your like-minded friends in the community think it'd be nice to build a $10 billion Museum of Rainbows and Sunshine doesn't make it right to tax me and my friends all our money to do it. Talk about elitism.
"Use of GPL software could subject certain portions of our proprietary software to the GPL requirements, which may have adverse effects on our sales of the products incorporating any such software," McAfee said in the report filed last month with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Looks like they pretty explicitly state that they use GPL software in a way that puts them at risk of a lawsuit (they might not get caught by the right copyright owners, so it's just a risk, not a surety). That said, sorry, huge companies don't tell their investors "Hey we're using code illegally, it's likely to land us in court unable to legally sell our products to anyone until we pay a massive fee and open source all of our code" just to make a point about open source.
Considering the general quality level of your post, maybe I can entice you to actually read my post by informing you that it includes a great car analogy. FWIW, the article isn't all that long, you could try reading that too.
Are you kidding? What trouble could they "stir up for FOSS community with SEC"? Does the SEC suddenly have the ability to punish some SEC-rule-abiding third-party company like Redhat for licensing terms that McAfee claims to have been too stupid to understand? The purpose of the SEC is to make sure that no financial or stock market-related fraud is going on... the SEC exists to make sure that companies like McAfee give stockholders relatively accurate information so they can accurately guage the company's value... hence the reason the report was filed with the SEC.
This report is in NO WAY an effort to somehow impede FOSS... this is entirely a case of McAfee explaining a potentially huge liability to stockholders with as much sugar coating and explaining away as possible. This is akin to an American car company sending stockholders a report in the 70's saying "there's a good chance we're going to get our asses kicked by the Japanese this year, but it's because of unfair trade policies! Don't blame us, and PLEASE DON'T SELL ALL YOUR STOCK IN A MASS PANIC!"
I'll never understand how moderators on Slashdot can justify giving a 5 to some posts.
Ms. Cartman: Doctor, did you find out what's wrong with him? Doctor: I'm afraid he's running out of time. Ms. Cartman: Why, what's wrong with him? Doctor: It's his time. It's running out. Ms. Cartman: What can we do? Doctor: Well, I suppose we can try a time transplant. I'll have to call a specialist.
... Insightful. This list is ridiculous. Yes, they DID describe some failings of each of these products. They did NOT describe, sufficiently, why these products were "the most disappointing." Can something be both "the most disappointing" and "the most revolutionary/awesome/ridiculously incredibly life-affirmingly awesome"? If not, I think maybe these guys need to reconsider their stances on most of these issues, i.e. iPhone, because it would seem that they are in the minority on this. You know what most disappointed me? The Optimus Maximus keyboard. No mention. I'm no MS fanboi (and this is aimed at the article in general, not just the MS specific parts), but it seems like this piece is nothing more than an attempt to drive traffic... who better to target for shock value than the leaders? For example... which book do you think would sell more copies, even if it was total bullshit:
"5 Reasons Hitler Was The Devil"
"5 Reasons Mother Teresa Was The Devil"
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with pretty much everything you said.
First: Yes, I am a 22 year old pursuing a Master's degree (partially fitting your description of a "kiddie... flooding the web 2.0 sites with Ron Paul crap"... however, I have not yet met another person fitting that description in any of the numerous groups I am a part of who support Ron Paul. Everyone I know is a middle-to-late age person with a steady job and a LOT to lose by electing the wrong person. They do NOT participate a lot on the web, but they DO participate a lot in the real-world activities that support RP... just check out the straw polls: the people participating there are the ones I am describing.
Second: I agree it is EXTREMELY important to argue against the policies of those currently in charge... in addition to supporting the policies of those who are running for office. Even if we can't get the people we want elected, we can hopefully prevent the election of those we completely disagree with. However, I think that getting a person who we completely agree with elected is at least as important... how can you possibly disagree? It just doesn't make sense.
To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide. I am not only sick of Ron Paul, but of the whole 2008 election. I was sick of it back in 2006. I'm sorry, but this statement is a contradication... you AGREE that campaigns should not be based almost entirely on money (like Romney and Giuliani) but on popular support (like Ron Paul, who HAPPENS to also have raised a lot of money from those people), but then go on to say you are sick of Ron Paul... Ron Paul is the ANSWER to our problems... I don't need to specify the reasons (90% of the intelligent commentators, especially on the web, could do this better than I can... if you want a reason, GOOGLE RON PAUL!). I agree that the 2008 election is basically a drain on one's energy and optimism, but THE EXCEPTION IS RON PAUL.
Really, it seems that your statement is not internally consistent. Perhaps you should take a course in basic logic? FYI, 2+2=4, yes!=no, etc...
Seems you might have misread my statement... I said that they must allow the recipients of the OLPC to choose which OS they want installed. The problems you mention would be worked out by this market... if MS offered a lesser product and the "buyer" were permitted free choice without coercion, Windows would not be chosen. Therefore, giving users more choices should be permitted. Of course, I highly doubt MS would be willing to make the concessions I mention, but that's beside the point I made. Seems perhaps you have the wrong attitude here... MS bashing is fun, but freedom is popular... give people more choices. Isn't that what Linux is all about?
I agree... if MS is willing to subsidize the extra cost associated with the upgraded design and will give the "shrunken" Windows XP to the project for free as an optional choice for those who wish to use it instead of the custom OS, then there's no reason to refuse. However, if it would add 1 cent to the project, or adds any type of restriction at all, I think the response to the request should be an emphatic "No."
Are you guys serious? Seriously, who DIDN'T already know this? This is a troll... like asking "so Linux is some kind of operating system?" in an article about the new scheduler. Well, maybe it's worth some "Funny" moderation...
Slashdot Mirror
Strange, I can't seem to find where I stated his answer was clear and concise, though I do remember saying "if you try using that brain of yours for something other than snarky comments you will quickly find he gave a very concise, logical answer."
Sorry, but you walked right into that one. In any case, I agree with you that by saving this money we could then spend it on our own space programs, I suppose I myself wasn't clear enough for a portion of the readers here on that aspect of the issue.
Haha, I would definitely support the creation of a trollslayer mod, that's pretty much my hobby here on Slashdot. Also, thx for the kind words Kintar :-)
I can see why you might not be satisfied with the answer to that particular question (though I still believe he answered the rest pretty well), but in his defense he did explicitly say that patent reform was not a topic he was particularly conversant in ("I do not have a plan for patent reform yet"), and I'm confident that if he thinks this is a topic of significant interest to the country then he will do his homework and come up with the kind of explicit answer you were looking for, i.e. "We should reduce copyright terms back to around the original limits, somewhere in the ballpark of 20 or 30 years". Based on Paul's strong opposition to corporate welfare, I think you can rest assured this is pretty close to the kind of conclusion he will come to himself. You've gotta hand it to him, on the one question he was pretty ambiguous about, he explicitly said it's because he hasn't looked into it much, and STILL gave an (admittedly ambiguous) answer inline with most of our views.
I don't really see how that's the case, both answers seemed pretty compatible... perhaps if you had given a reason or two we could discuss this further. Your lack of details notwithstanding, let me try to explain why they are not in conflict: 1: He basically stated that by discontinuing our subsidization of other countries through military aid, they will quickly find they have a lot less money to blow on costly, competitive space plans. Beyond that, it's not our business to try to interfere with other countries' efforts to build a space infrastructure. We ought to try to improve our own, of course. 2: He said he believes we all deserve straightforward, concise answers to our questions. I see no conflict... I assume you intended to say that his answer to question 1 was somehow not a straight answer, but I contend that if you try using that brain of yours for something other than snarky comments you will quickly find he gave a very concise, logical answer to question 1 while explicitly avoiding buzzwords and fluff.
I don't see why... "typical" politicians avoid making commitments altogether. Ron Paul stated his stance on the issues as concisely as possible (explicitly AVOIDING the use of buzzwords and filler), and took a position on each one of them. I now know precisely what his commitment is to each of these topics, even if he didn't outline a complete, step-by-step plan on how to implement each one of them. I think these answers were completely sufficient.
...have you ever actually met? My guess is that you're either lying, or you don't know any. I am a Libertarian, and I have been heavily involved in non-profit and charity work for over 8 years (I'm 22 and lower-middle class), not for personal gain or status, but because I feel a strong sense of responsibility for the well-being of the less-fortunate.
Of all the Libertarians that I know well enough to make an accurate assessment, I personally don't know ANY who are primarily motivated by selfishness, stinginess, or greed (though I'm sure there are some). There are uncharitable and selfish people who subscribe to all categories of political thought, but if you honestly think Libertarians are any more selfish than any other group, I think you might be mistaking somebody saying "I don't believe we should be taxed to do this because the government is inefficient and corrupt" as saying "I don't want to pay for this."
So, either you're a douche for lying, or you're a douche for not understanding the most basic tenets of the political belief system you are attacking. In either case, there's no need to apologize, I know you don't know any better, and I forgive you anyway.
I really hope that, if a succussful gene therapy program is ever discovered to reverse or prevent the development of autism, the medical industry will refuse to offer it in any form other than a thimerisol-preserved shot as the ultimate fuck-you to all these people who have wasted so much of everybody's time and money.
That's right, it's his view. That is, it's an opinion. Nothing he says is "fact", nor is it backed up by fact, or even a convincing argument. Why does he get +5 insightful? Do I get +5 insightful in a Linux thread for saying something like:
"Linux is the absolute best operating system. It's open source, making it super awesome. Bill Gates doesn't own it, so it's even more awesome. I know a large number of geeks and am fond of many of them, and they all like Linux, therefore it cannot be anything but the absolute bestest operating system evar. I want evil corporations to keep their money grubbing hands off Linux!"
No, I do not get +5 insightful... because that is an opinion. There are no "facts" per se, and I really give nothing to back it up, except for a superficially convincing collection of personal anecdotes, which actually add nothing to the discussion at all.
He didn't add anything to any abortion argument that has ever taken place in the history of the universe, except possibly some arguments in the Bible Belt. Please mod him, and me, -1 offtopic. The end.
FWIW, you're right, the government should keep their hands off a woman's body. That's my opinion.
It really is ludicrous to think they are doing this to try to strike against FOSS in some way... I'm sure that if they could legally bury this information without setting themselves up for a future stock price crash when they are sued, then they absolutely would. This is NOT the kind of thing a company puts in an investor report because they want to make a statement. This is the kind of thing CEO's would try so hard to avoid and bury that they'd end up in jail.
People can organize to do things without resorting to theft. You've partly got me on the issue of roads, for some infrastructure the ideal balance of efficiency and ease of implementation is at the national level. Once it is built, however, why can't it be maintained by local government, paid for by user fees? That is both the easiest AND the most efficient solution. On the schooling issue, you are clearly a product of public education. Even if you WANT schools to be completely public, then all of human history up to the present day shows this is best done at the local level, not the federal level. Believe me, we don't need a federal government that's even 20% of the size it is today. Grow some balls and realize that you actually can survive without a corrupt, bloated bureaucracy telling you how to live your life and spend your money... at gunpoint.
I have to agree with most of what you said, except for one statement: "Subjectivity is the root reason for governments to exist"... and I even agree with the part of the sentence after that statement. I still think the root REASONS government exist are the ones I postulated... over time, the government changes its purpose to suit its own needs, as you stated, and that is an unfortunate fact. However, saying that government exists to become corrupted by compromise and greed until it falls and is replaced is simply not true. That's like saying the reason ice cubes exist is because they melt. Yes they melt, but we make them to absorb heat. Melting is a gradual, unavoidable result of this, but when they are all melted, do we say "great, now that they're melted, we should strive for more puddles of water"? No, we say "dump out that water, let's make some new ice cubes".
I'd say that governments should exist for the protection of the populace from external threats (other nations), and the protection of their rights and freedoms (for example, if someone were to try to murder you, or if some group were to try to overthrow the government to set up a new government which was more tyrannical). The government should then have to make a choice between "no taxes" and "some taxes", striving for the optimal balance of "just enough taxes to do the two jobs previously listed". It would seem that the founding fathers agree with me, based on some of the evidence they've left behind (Constitution, Federalist Papers, Bill of Rights, etc.).
Sorry buddy, I think you're pigeonholing all the founders into a category of men who only cared about taxation without representation and nothing more... but lets ignore the fact that the majority of the founding fathers were individualists and against large government in ADDITION to disagreeing with taxation without representation, and take on your argument as if all your premises were true. Sorry, but when you take MY money, apply it to YOUR favorite pet programs that I feel are not worth the money or a detriment to myself and the country, then guess what... I am not being represented in government adequately for the taxes I pay. Dumbass.
Incidentally, a democracy is not what we have, and thank God. Before I let you go, ever hear of the tyranny of the majority? 51% of the people who are mildly in support of something can screw over 49% of the people who are vehemently against it. Just because you and your like-minded friends in the community think it'd be nice to build a $10 billion Museum of Rainbows and Sunshine doesn't make it right to tax me and my friends all our money to do it. Talk about elitism.
...if it didn't take so long to copy the images it takes onto external storage.
Looks like they pretty explicitly state that they use GPL software in a way that puts them at risk of a lawsuit (they might not get caught by the right copyright owners, so it's just a risk, not a surety). That said, sorry, huge companies don't tell their investors "Hey we're using code illegally, it's likely to land us in court unable to legally sell our products to anyone until we pay a massive fee and open source all of our code" just to make a point about open source.
For a better understanding of what this filing is actually about, please check out my previous post to this thread: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=406724&cid=21922536
Considering the general quality level of your post, maybe I can entice you to actually read my post by informing you that it includes a great car analogy. FWIW, the article isn't all that long, you could try reading that too.
Note: Please forgive the entirely unintentional, force-of-habit car analogy above.
Are you kidding? What trouble could they "stir up for FOSS community with SEC"? Does the SEC suddenly have the ability to punish some SEC-rule-abiding third-party company like Redhat for licensing terms that McAfee claims to have been too stupid to understand? The purpose of the SEC is to make sure that no financial or stock market-related fraud is going on... the SEC exists to make sure that companies like McAfee give stockholders relatively accurate information so they can accurately guage the company's value... hence the reason the report was filed with the SEC.
This report is in NO WAY an effort to somehow impede FOSS... this is entirely a case of McAfee explaining a potentially huge liability to stockholders with as much sugar coating and explaining away as possible. This is akin to an American car company sending stockholders a report in the 70's saying "there's a good chance we're going to get our asses kicked by the Japanese this year, but it's because of unfair trade policies! Don't blame us, and PLEASE DON'T SELL ALL YOUR STOCK IN A MASS PANIC!"
I'll never understand how moderators on Slashdot can justify giving a 5 to some posts.
Seems like the best way to solve this problem would be to remove any and all possible chance that the IRS might mishandle our data...
Ms. Cartman: Doctor, did you find out what's wrong with him?
Doctor: I'm afraid he's running out of time.
Ms. Cartman: Why, what's wrong with him?
Doctor: It's his time. It's running out.
Ms. Cartman: What can we do?
Doctor: Well, I suppose we can try a time transplant. I'll have to call a specialist.
... Insightful. This list is ridiculous. Yes, they DID describe some failings of each of these products. They did NOT describe, sufficiently, why these products were "the most disappointing." Can something be both "the most disappointing" and "the most revolutionary/awesome/ridiculously incredibly life-affirmingly awesome"? If not, I think maybe these guys need to reconsider their stances on most of these issues, i.e. iPhone, because it would seem that they are in the minority on this. You know what most disappointed me? The Optimus Maximus keyboard. No mention. I'm no MS fanboi (and this is aimed at the article in general, not just the MS specific parts), but it seems like this piece is nothing more than an attempt to drive traffic... who better to target for shock value than the leaders? For example... which book do you think would sell more copies, even if it was total bullshit:
"5 Reasons Hitler Was The Devil"
"5 Reasons Mother Teresa Was The Devil"
So then it seems you agree with the response I gave to the other poster.
Seems you might have misread my statement... I said that they must allow the recipients of the OLPC to choose which OS they want installed. The problems you mention would be worked out by this market... if MS offered a lesser product and the "buyer" were permitted free choice without coercion, Windows would not be chosen. Therefore, giving users more choices should be permitted. Of course, I highly doubt MS would be willing to make the concessions I mention, but that's beside the point I made. Seems perhaps you have the wrong attitude here... MS bashing is fun, but freedom is popular... give people more choices. Isn't that what Linux is all about?
I agree... if MS is willing to subsidize the extra cost associated with the upgraded design and will give the "shrunken" Windows XP to the project for free as an optional choice for those who wish to use it instead of the custom OS, then there's no reason to refuse. However, if it would add 1 cent to the project, or adds any type of restriction at all, I think the response to the request should be an emphatic "No."
Are you guys serious? Seriously, who DIDN'T already know this? This is a troll... like asking "so Linux is some kind of operating system?" in an article about the new scheduler. Well, maybe it's worth some "Funny" moderation...