While other votes are incidental to the legitimacy of their Power, a Vote resulting in the removal of the Legitimacy will result in them getting carted off if they protest too strenuously the loss of the power.
After all, they no longer have it and their own actions are in direct conflict with the source of their Power. These will self destruct.
Now, if you were in a truly fascist state what you said could be true.
As it is, this is just a group of legitimately elected induh-viduals who are carried away with their sense of worth and degree of correctness. It does not directly affect the legitimacy of the power they hold as stated above. This perturbations of this misuse can be spun out such that it requires additional forces - of Individuals - to directly challenge their misuse through the method you first mentioned, but discarded. That is the correct road.
Perhaps you submit and subject your will to the democratic process, but I subject the democratic process to my Will and it must submit, being that kind of process, at least in proportion to my efforts.
It may mean you abide by the "results" of the process but it certainly doesn't mean that I must do so, especially after the above rewording. What it does mean is that the voting cycle of the democratic process is quiescent (for now) and I must utilize the other avenues of approach to subject the Democratic Process to my Will. And I do so.
I haven't lost faith in the process as much as lost faith in the victim mentality you are projecting. One continues to live in any world of one's choosing. By no longer thinking that you are in a democracy, you are not. That doesn't mean I choose to live in the same world.
Where are your morals and principles if you are standing on sand? If voting is a lie and a crime against your morals and principles then so must supporting the system in any way. Living supports the system. If the whole world's a Catch-22 to you , perhaps it's time to get out the only way left.
Why threaten to leave before asking for more money?
If you think it's deserved, which you obviously do, then ask. And ask again in 2 months if they say no. Don't ask your manager, since he seems impotent in the situation. Ask his manager, or a C* level exec. YOU need to let upper management get the hint that you're unhappy with your salary.
If you are "worth" it to the company they will see things your way - provided you can explain why you are "worth" the extra $$.
Is is possible to create a program that simply activates Vista licenses? -- I mean, without having Vista at all. Just connects to MS and attempts to activate keys, all day long.
It would be like a DOS on the licensing mechanisms.
Let me refine this a little further and then re-ask the question.
Certainly one can lump every part of a set into another set if you broaden the definition of the container. So, if you equate a corporate agenda with a volunteer's agenda then yes, the same argument applies.
I believe that part of the distinction between volunteers and paid workers is the distinction between agendas. Part of a corporate agenda is mandating someone at your company do X,Y and Z. Even if they want to do the work, they are not volunteering to do it - there is no altruism involved, although enlightened self interest (both on behalf of the corp and the individual) certainly isn't beyond the pale.
The question you seem to be posing in a roundabout way is why are individuals considered volunteers while corporate employees not so considered?
The corporate agenda, as everyone here well knows, is to make a profit. By contributing to open source projects, they hope to make more money than if they did not do so. In no way does this fit the spirit of the word "volunteer". In fact, if that were the case, every company is "volunteering" the time of their employees to produce the goods and services they sell. Not only is this wrong, but it cheapens the use of the word.
I guess, next, they'll go after Plasmon, MTS, Mitsubishi and others for making HD-DVD glass-master and pressing equipment, which can be used to make illegal copies as well? And many an AC on/. will support them for it, regardless of the fact that this is the same equipment used to make the original; without it, there would be nothing to copy. I believe that you have quite hit the nail on the head. Eventually this sort of fear and greed driven mentality turns on itself, even if through proxy such as in this example. It then begins to dismantle the very support structure it depends on to survive.
Eventually, it must either cease and desist these activities (that is, change) or vanish in a flash of human repudiation.
Personal responsibility and ownership of one's actions goes a long way here. Your argument falls flat on it's face when the punishment for the "crime" does not meet the standards of decency. While you can be personally responsible for the copyright infringement there is a huge gap between what you are responsible for and the punishment.
I don't believe that there is a clear "chain of responsibility" that causes one to own the punishment - that is broken by the disproportionality between the events.
I believe that all the "value add" subsystems of such a service can be done in two parts, neither of which require a large monopoly organization.
1) Create and or modify the management s/w as OSS projects 2) Create the content under a CC license
Think of how extensive IMDB is, or something like the Wikipedia.
A veritable meritocracy for content. Most of the aggregation, organization and presentation can be built into the s/w services. All it takes is for people to be able to use them easily and it has been proven that they will do so if they find the service worthwhile.
The only hard part currently is getting somewhere to host it as an honest service. Everything else would fall into place if that were possible (IMHO).
The only other thing Microsoft can do then is to warn the user what's happening to their computer, provide as much useful information as possible (in as much a user-friendly manner as possible) and then let the user decide. And here is where they went wrong. They thought that as much was a bigger qualifier than useful...
That's probably while people are complaining. Or haven't you used Vista?
I have no idea why you let 'celebrities' decide what you shoud use, for good or for ill. This is exactly the same. You aare letting these people decide for you based on obviously skewed priorities.
It doesn't matter what one user does, or doesn't do, says or doesn't say in their personal life. Professional and corporate statements are of course, different. If you feel Redhat works for you, you shouldn't care what Eric says. If you don't, you really shouldn't care.
I care when multitudes follow their statements, like you do. And you are feeding into that by playing the other side - OMG! $RANDOM_FAMOUS_USER said $FOO -"i hate when they do that" so I'll take some misapplied action.
I don't think that is necessarily the case if it is determined the RIAA has been bringing frivolous lawsuits.
It would seem that is should be illegal for a company to bring an extortionate lawsuit and in settlement have the other party waive their legal rights to redress if it can later be proven the company has been acting like the mafi**.
I know analogies have been getting a bad rap around here but to my understanding this would be like me threatening to break someone's legs unless they give me cash and sign a paper saying they won't press charges or sue. I don't think such a piece of paper has any legal meaning beyond proof of the extortionate activity itself.
IANAL, although if someone has a better grounding in this I would appreciate enlightenment.
So, it's obviously okay with you if someone breaks into your computer and monitors it for child porn. Thanks! You appear to have given informed consent to be monitored in this fashion. After all, whoever is doing it is looking for child porn and you are agreeing that it is necessary to do so.
Secondly, just how dirty is too dirty? If the guy is looking at child porn you obviously believe it's okay to break into his computer and monitor him for 3 years to find the evidence. You also seem to believe it's okay that he also broke into 3000 other people's computers where he did not find any evidence and monitor their activities for the same time period.
Can he break also into homes (say 3,000 of them) on a regular basis and take samples of underwear for DNA testing? Can he start torturing "suspects" until he gets one to confess and then release the rest? How about just shooting everyone who downloads his trojan file? After all, that's the price to catch evildoers, right? Getting your hands dirty.
You may live in the real world, but many of the rest of us are trying to make the REAL WORLD a better place - not a worse place. Your misguided attempts to drag everyone else down into the muck you think you inhabit may help in the survival of those memes, but certainly doesn't seem to actually, you know, help. I find your cynicism appalling.
I'm sorry that didn't see you idealism survive out in the BIG BAD WORLD, but it can and does elsewhere.
Because as strange as it may sound, in many jurisdictions the Police did not obtain the evidence in an illegal way.
They neither authorized the criminal activity nor perpetrated it.
A similar situation obtains if for example a burglar breaks into your house and finds a grow room or that you're making bombs (because after all, those are quite similar terrorist activities, you know!). They can send pictures and your address to the police, who can obtain a warrant to search even if the burglar admits in the letter they broke in to take the pix.
That's because it's the individual who conceived of and committed the crime, not the state. That crime turned up evidence of another crime and the police can go after both parties, actually.
What may be interesting here is that the police do have a duty to stop the burglar (or hacker, in this case) if they know he is committing the crimes that produce the evidence. I think there may be some weight to a sort of unclean hands assertion. That is, the police knowingly do not stop someone from contining to do illegal activites because it helps them catch other criminals. At some point I believe it becomes as if the police are doing it themselves and thus the evidence is illegal. IANAL, though.
Asking you to abide by terms of a contract you signed, is an unreasonable thing? It is if the contract is totally unreasonable and you have to either sign the contract of go out of business. It most certainly is not. Let me know what businesses you own so I can avoid them. What's unreasonable is that people like you think that it's okay to break your word because it's too hard to keep it.
By your logic, if you signed a contract to provide $service at $price with $penalties if you did not, you should be able to whine that it was an unreasonable contract and that you would have gone out of business if you did not sign it (after all, you needed that cash!), so therefore you shouldn't have to provide the $service OR have to deal with the consequences of the $penalties. After all, those penalties would put you out of business too!
So, either deal with the fact that you need to honour your commitments or get out of business.
Note: This is not a blanket pass for the banks behind the CC scam we currently inhabit. The current cartel seems inevitably borken. But if you decide to jump in that pool you had better play by the rules you agreed to.
Yes, however people in the police force have self selected to become these type of people. There is something in them that needs the validation of having authority over others.
So imagine how much worse the experiment would turn out (as it sometimes does IRL) with such a self selected group...
Ever heard of Fitt's Law? There's a very good reason for putting the menu bar at the top of the screen - it makes it much easier to 'hit' the menus with your mouse, because the mouse stops at the top of the screen. I recently got a Mac, and nowhere did I see mention of this simple yet important concept. You don't need to be as precise in the vertical direction which means more hits on target. One less degree of freedom to worry about. I had not realized the UI worked that way.
I came from a windows and linux, solaris, X11, etc. background and I am trained to stop at a certain vertical position to select a menu item (unless of course I know the keyboard shortcuts - and on a Mac I certainly don't, yet.). I am still doing this on the Mac but now realize I don't have to. Cool.
But what about people that only want to use free and open source software? How are they supposed to play DirectX games? Unless Microsoft are forced to document their APIs in a manner acceptable to the Free Software movement (i.e. no fees or NDAs), how are other OSs supposed to implement them? Um... They aren't?
The only difference between that and the GM foods of today is we can just go in and tinker with the genes directly rather than crossbreeding and hoping we get the traits we want. I would go so far as to say that if you want to cut all GM foods out of your diet, you'd best stop eating altogether. What, are you a GM apologist? Clearly selective breeding and GM are two different techniques. As you say, people have been selectively breeding plants and animals since 'agriculture' began and yes, the human intervention in their lifecycles produced genetic modifications to the stocks. However, to equate the products of these two different methods of genetic modification as having equal health and safety concerns is not only delusional it is dangerous.
To say that genetic modification is just some kind of 'better' selective breeding is intellectually lazy at the outset and intellectually dishonest upon insistence of the point.
Otherwise, I suggest you work on getting that fish and potato to breed the old fashioned way.
Re:did yall check the whois for groklaw?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 2, Funny
ibiblio has hosted GrokLaw for years. But I am not Pamela Jones. We also host Eric S. Raymond's site. But I am not Eric S. Raymond. How can we be sure? I have never seen all three of you at the same time, and I doubt anyone else has either. Just by protesting so loudly we must step back and reassess the truthiness of your statements.
Bringing extraneous facts into the mix only serve to confuse the matter and further support the notion that you are indeed Pamela Jones. Ever been to Sweden?
I, myself, am on the fence and await the full details of your airline flights for the past 10 years to make a call. SCO will probably be avaiting your deposition into those flights any time now.
But seriously, this crap is exactly what SCO wants - to punish PJ and rake her over the coals, ask her obnoxious questions and hope to get some statements they can turn into another motion, and another, and...
It seems that someone's opinions on $foo may be ignorant and sensationalist while their opinions on $bar may be isightful and informed. Imagine that!
Considering that he is also an M.D., one might expect that he has more knowledge of the medical world than he has of climate change. Also, did you read both pieces, or at least parts of the global warming piece? I know that this is slashdot, but could be a slight qualitative difference between:
* Global warming has been manufactured by an environmentalist scientific cabal, thus is wrong
and
* Gene patents have demonstrably hurt average everyday people and are thus wrong.
I don't believe that Google currently is mandated to show users any particular results. The simplest technological solution for Google might be to drop indexing the sites that send these takedown notices entirely. No index, no cache; dump it all and don't look back.
They are in no way legally bound to do come up with a more advanced solution that would be more $$ and add more complexity to the codebase.
Now because there very well may be information that is unavailable anywhere else (although it seems relatively unlikely - yes, they might have copyrighted articles that are unavailable otherwise, but I cannot imagine the information contained therein is such, unless you're talking about creative works) Google may try to work something out. Oh, that and they are remarkably not evil compared to the power they currently wield.
Imagine how many takedown notices they would receive after the first few rounds of companies that complained cannot be found through Google...
Slashdot Mirror
Um, no.
While other votes are incidental to the legitimacy of their Power, a Vote resulting in the removal of the Legitimacy will result in them getting carted off if they protest too strenuously the loss of the power.
After all, they no longer have it and their own actions are in direct conflict with the source of their Power. These will self destruct.
Now, if you were in a truly fascist state what you said could be true.
As it is, this is just a group of legitimately elected induh-viduals who are carried away with their sense of worth and degree of correctness. It does not directly affect the legitimacy of the power they hold as stated above. This perturbations of this misuse can be spun out such that it requires additional forces - of Individuals - to directly challenge their misuse through the method you first mentioned, but discarded. That is the correct road.
I differ with your assessment.
Perhaps you submit and subject your will to the democratic process, but I subject the democratic process to my Will and it must submit, being that kind of process, at least in proportion to my efforts.
It may mean you abide by the "results" of the process but it certainly doesn't mean that I must do so, especially after the above rewording. What it does mean is that the voting cycle of the democratic process is quiescent (for now) and I must utilize the other avenues of approach to subject the Democratic Process to my Will. And I do so.
I haven't lost faith in the process as much as lost faith in the victim mentality you are projecting. One continues to live in any world of one's choosing. By no longer thinking that you are in a democracy, you are not. That doesn't mean I choose to live in the same world.
Where are your morals and principles if you are standing on sand? If voting is a lie and a crime against your morals and principles then so must supporting the system in any way. Living supports the system. If the whole world's a Catch-22 to you , perhaps it's time to get out the only way left.
Cheers. Or not.
Why threaten to leave before asking for more money?
If you think it's deserved, which you obviously do, then ask. And ask again in 2 months if they say no. Don't ask your manager, since he seems impotent in the situation. Ask his manager, or a C* level exec. YOU need to let upper management get the hint that you're unhappy with your salary.
If you are "worth" it to the company they will see things your way - provided you can explain why you are "worth" the extra $$.
Good luck.
Is is possible to create a program that simply activates Vista licenses? -- I mean, without having Vista at all. Just connects to MS and attempts to activate keys, all day long.
It would be like a DOS on the licensing mechanisms.
So, everyone who does something without coercion is a volunteer? That means that everyone who has a paid job is "volunteering" their time to the job.
:)
I think that your definition needs a little work...
Let me refine this a little further and then re-ask the question.
Certainly one can lump every part of a set into another set if you broaden the definition of the container. So, if you equate a corporate agenda with a volunteer's agenda then yes, the same argument applies.
I believe that part of the distinction between volunteers and paid workers is the distinction between agendas. Part of a corporate agenda is mandating someone at your company do X,Y and Z. Even if they want to do the work, they are not volunteering to do it - there is no altruism involved, although enlightened self interest (both on behalf of the corp and the individual) certainly isn't beyond the pale.
The question you seem to be posing in a roundabout way is why are individuals considered volunteers while corporate employees not so considered?
The corporate agenda, as everyone here well knows, is to make a profit. By contributing to open source projects, they hope to make more money than if they did not do so. In no way does this fit the spirit of the word "volunteer". In fact, if that were the case, every company is "volunteering" the time of their employees to produce the goods and services they sell. Not only is this wrong, but it cheapens the use of the word.
Eventually, it must either cease and desist these activities (that is, change) or vanish in a flash of human repudiation.
I don't believe that there is a clear "chain of responsibility" that causes one to own the punishment - that is broken by the disproportionality between the events.
I think it really means what you mean by hardware. If you mean a device which can be replicated in software, then I woudl agree with you.
But, how about the laser? It is a hardware device. Should it be patentable?
I believe that all the "value add" subsystems of such a service can be done in two parts, neither of which require a large monopoly organization.
1) Create and or modify the management s/w as OSS projects
2) Create the content under a CC license
Think of how extensive IMDB is, or something like the Wikipedia.
A veritable meritocracy for content. Most of the aggregation, organization and presentation can be built into the s/w services. All it takes is for people to be able to use them easily and it has been proven that they will do so if they find the service worthwhile.
The only hard part currently is getting somewhere to host it as an honest service. Everything else would fall into place if that were possible (IMHO).
So, you have invented serial QC! Congratulations!
Or one could formulate the problem such that the result of the random sort is the solution...
That's probably while people are complaining. Or haven't you used Vista?
Umm... Hong Kong, since that's where the revenue flows?
I have no idea why you let 'celebrities' decide what you shoud use, for good or for ill. This is exactly the same. You aare letting these people decide for you based on obviously skewed priorities.
It doesn't matter what one user does, or doesn't do, says or doesn't say in their personal life. Professional and corporate statements are of course, different. If you feel Redhat works for you, you shouldn't care what Eric says. If you don't, you really shouldn't care.
I care when multitudes follow their statements, like you do. And you are feeding into that by playing the other side - OMG! $RANDOM_FAMOUS_USER said $FOO -"i hate when they do that" so I'll take some misapplied action.
I don't think that is necessarily the case if it is determined the RIAA has been bringing frivolous lawsuits.
It would seem that is should be illegal for a company to bring an extortionate lawsuit and in settlement have the other party waive their legal rights to redress if it can later be proven the company has been acting like the mafi**.
I know analogies have been getting a bad rap around here but to my understanding this would be like me threatening to break someone's legs unless they give me cash and sign a paper saying they won't press charges or sue. I don't think such a piece of paper has any legal meaning beyond proof of the extortionate activity itself.
IANAL, although if someone has a better grounding in this I would appreciate enlightenment.
So, it's obviously okay with you if someone breaks into your computer and monitors it for child porn. Thanks! You appear to have given informed consent to be monitored in this fashion. After all, whoever is doing it is looking for child porn and you are agreeing that it is necessary to do so.
Secondly, just how dirty is too dirty? If the guy is looking at child porn you obviously believe it's okay to break into his computer and monitor him for 3 years to find the evidence. You also seem to believe it's okay that he also broke into 3000 other people's computers where he did not find any evidence and monitor their activities for the same time period.
Can he break also into homes (say 3,000 of them) on a regular basis and take samples of underwear for DNA testing? Can he start torturing "suspects" until he gets one to confess and then release the rest? How about just shooting everyone who downloads his trojan file? After all, that's the price to catch evildoers, right? Getting your hands dirty.
You may live in the real world, but many of the rest of us are trying to make the REAL WORLD a better place - not a worse place. Your misguided attempts to drag everyone else down into the muck you think you inhabit may help in the survival of those memes, but certainly doesn't seem to actually, you know, help. I find your cynicism appalling.
I'm sorry that didn't see you idealism survive out in the BIG BAD WORLD, but it can and does elsewhere.
Cheers
Because as strange as it may sound, in many jurisdictions the Police did not obtain the evidence in an illegal way.
They neither authorized the criminal activity nor perpetrated it.
A similar situation obtains if for example a burglar breaks into your house and finds a grow room or that you're making bombs (because after all, those are quite similar terrorist activities, you know!). They can send pictures and your address to the police, who can obtain a warrant to search even if the burglar admits in the letter they broke in to take the pix.
That's because it's the individual who conceived of and committed the crime, not the state. That crime turned up evidence of another crime and the police can go after both parties, actually.
What may be interesting here is that the police do have a duty to stop the burglar (or hacker, in this case) if they know he is committing the crimes that produce the evidence. I think there may be some weight to a sort of unclean hands assertion. That is, the police knowingly do not stop someone from contining to do illegal activites because it helps them catch other criminals. At some point I believe it becomes as if the police are doing it themselves and thus the evidence is illegal. IANAL, though.
By your logic, if you signed a contract to provide $service at $price with $penalties if you did not, you should be able to whine that it was an unreasonable contract and that you would have gone out of business if you did not sign it (after all, you needed that cash!), so therefore you shouldn't have to provide the $service OR have to deal with the consequences of the $penalties. After all, those penalties would put you out of business too!
So, either deal with the fact that you need to honour your commitments or get out of business.
Note: This is not a blanket pass for the banks behind the CC scam we currently inhabit. The current cartel seems inevitably borken. But if you decide to jump in that pool you had better play by the rules you agreed to.
Yes, however people in the police force have self selected to become these type of people. There is something in them that needs the validation of having authority over others.
So imagine how much worse the experiment would turn out (as it sometimes does IRL) with such a self selected group...
I came from a windows and linux, solaris, X11, etc. background and I am trained to stop at a certain vertical position to select a menu item (unless of course I know the keyboard shortcuts - and on a Mac I certainly don't, yet.). I am still doing this on the Mac but now realize I don't have to. Cool.
Thanks!
To say that genetic modification is just some kind of 'better' selective breeding is intellectually lazy at the outset and intellectually dishonest upon insistence of the point.
Otherwise, I suggest you work on getting that fish and potato to breed the old fashioned way.
Bringing extraneous facts into the mix only serve to confuse the matter and further support the notion that you are indeed Pamela Jones. Ever been to Sweden?
I, myself, am on the fence and await the full details of your airline flights for the past 10 years to make a call. SCO will probably be avaiting your deposition into those flights any time now.
But seriously, this crap is exactly what SCO wants - to punish PJ and rake her over the coals, ask her obnoxious questions and hope to get some statements they can turn into another motion, and another, and...
Well, yes.
It seems that someone's opinions on $foo may be ignorant and sensationalist while their opinions on $bar may be isightful and informed. Imagine that!
Considering that he is also an M.D., one might expect that he has more knowledge of the medical world than he has of climate change. Also, did you read both pieces, or at least parts of the global warming piece? I know that this is slashdot, but could be a slight qualitative difference between:
* Global warming has been manufactured by an environmentalist scientific cabal, thus is wrong
and
* Gene patents have demonstrably hurt average everyday people and are thus wrong.
Just checking.
...in the foot.
I don't believe that Google currently is mandated to show users any particular results. The simplest technological solution for Google might be to drop indexing the sites that send these takedown notices entirely. No index, no cache; dump it all and don't look back.
They are in no way legally bound to do come up with a more advanced solution that would be more $$ and add more complexity to the codebase.
Now because there very well may be information that is unavailable anywhere else (although it seems relatively unlikely - yes, they might have copyrighted articles that are unavailable otherwise, but I cannot imagine the information contained therein is such, unless you're talking about creative works) Google may try to work something out. Oh, that and they are remarkably not evil compared to the power they currently wield.
Imagine how many takedown notices they would receive after the first few rounds of companies that complained cannot be found through Google...