True enough. It's just that when Rush says "liberal", you can almost feel the venom dripping off of every letter.:) I'm sure there is an equivalent from the other perspective, as you say; maybe some pundit and "religious right"?
From my view just a micron left of center, it seems to me that "liberal" is used much more as an applied insult than "conservative". "Right wing" might be used somewhat by the right as an implied insult, but truly the way Rush and others use the word "liberal", you'd think it means "covered and maggots and likely to run over their own grandmother on a whim". This is truly sad: I think that encourages an ignorance in America of what it really means. BTW, some ideas pushed by the GOP are, strictly speaking, liberal.
I wrote an operating system yesterday. Today, my friend started using it as well. Based on this growth rate, every person on the planet will be using MyOS by the end of september.
By the time some employer gives you some contract to sign, they have already expended lots of resources towards hiring you. You do have some leverage to change the terms of your contract because they have an interest in not letting that effort go to waste and also becasue they have decide on *you*. Depending on the company and you, this can be quite a good bargaining point, even in down times.
My Belly-Button lint is extremely rare, but worth almost nothing.
Value, worth, social pressures, and traditions are all arbitrary. Decide if you're someone who likes to go along or rebel or somewhere in between, then get on with your life.
OK, got you. What I think is absurd about that particular line of reasoning is that it values humans above all other animals (especially farm animals) which runs counter to other bits of vegan reasoning.
Why stop there? You don't need to eat the flesh of veggies either. If you really cared about your fellow creature, you would just sit in the sun and photosynthesize.
Try quoting a document that has some legal bearing on the USA. The Declaration doesn't, the Constitution does.
I don't know what you mean by "stop someone from publicly declaring their religion" - the government doesn't do that, nor did it "strike the word god". Perhaps you could explain what you mean?
Or maybe you're just one of these reactionary lunatics who doesn't care much for accuracy or evidence.
The GPL is the vehicle that makes "free software" a right of the individual. This parallels "free speech" in that free refers to the freedom of all people to speak. Let's dispense with the myriad exceptions for the momemt. When I speak, it doesn't abridge
your right to speak. As you point out, this is guarunteed by the 1st Ammendment. Think of the GPL of the tool that attempts to guaruntee the same rights with respect to certain pieces of software. The link with free speech is close, because the GPL utilizes and undermines in some ways one of the myriad exceptions on free speech, copyright.
Back to the unabbridge speech world: if I speak, anyone else can repeat and modify what I say. This is a right they have, not a property of the speech or a right of mine. If I give out "free software", anyone has similar right to modify and distribute that software as well. This is the right of everyone around, not just me. These rights can't be achieved without source availability. We don't need "source" with speech because our bodies/and minds deal with that. Software requires at least source code to get similar extension of rights.
GPL is only the tool that makes "free software" behave like "free speech" in this regard - not in the cost of the item, but in the rights of others around me. The restriction on the GPL (that says other must do the same) is necessary because software doesn't enjoy the protection of an ammendment and in fact has to cope with additional restriction of copyright law. I'm free to say: "no one else has free speech from this day forward". This has no meaning, but the equivalent in the software world does. The parallel breaks.
You are free to disagree with this, to not use the GPL in your own code, to not use the GPL products, etc. The GPL contributes to a large body of "free software" - that people choose to build upon
Bottom line, Stallman defines exactly what he means by free. His use of "free" is at worst an extension of other common and less common usages. There are no doubts to anyone who takes any time to research these things (ahem, software developers, for example) exactly what he means when he talks about his views, the GPL, his take on "free software", etc. Your repetitive accusations of dishonest tactics really don't fly well in the face of over 20 years of full disclosure of his motivations, beliefs, contracts, licenses, opinions, and source code. Think about it.
I take it from the rest of your comment that you agree with my assessment of RMS's language: it's emotional, instead of rational....
I take it from this comment that you didn't read the rest of my comment. Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned your writing seems to appeal to emotion much more than that of Stallman. You seem to introduce hyperbole where he only introduced analogy. You bring up emotionally laden terms where he did not. I've brought up in several threads how I think your assessment of his introduction of the civil rights movements and the women's suffarage movement is overly critical. He discussed motiviations for breaking rules: you called him an extremist and a martyr.
Another example of "underhanded sophistry": associating Stallman with Clinton (presumably for morals) and "hippies" (presumably for their theivery described by Elton), when he displays the intended characteristics of neither.
When has Stallman ever drunk your milk? Or violated the license of any software you know about to do the supposed IP equivalent?
You would think that you would have learned a lesson from the moderation totals on the article you wrote and linked to above that complaining about stallman in fact is likely to boost your karma. But no, in the above article, you lament the inevitable falling of your precious karma not once but 4 times. Yet as I write this, you've already been boosted up to +4 insightful.
Interesting tactic, it seems you used it in the linked article as well. A bit of the old reverse psychology. "Oh dear me, I know I'll be modded down, but someone has to tell it like it is to the horde of slashdot."
On to the meat.
Your objections to Stallman above and in your linked article seem to be tainted by some work you had to do because someone in your company didn't read the license to a bit of software before using it in a compony product. Boo hoo. You should be mad at that person, not the author of that software or the GNU project or Stallman in general.
You go to great lengths to attack Stallman's use of the word "free" and how software (as a non-entitity) can't be free in the way Stallman means it. What about free speech? Right or wrong, the "free" in Stallman's free software speaks about the rights of individuals the same way "free' in "free speech does.
Also, read this again and tell us if you are being more honest than Stallman is:
Here he tries to associate himself with civil rights protesters from the past, as if to say, "What we did is right because what the did is right." The association is horribly inapt, and in very poor taste. You're not a martyr, Richard. You're a political extremist. Nobody is dying for The Cause here, and I for one would appreciate it if you'd tone down your language a bit.
Oh the irony. Maybe you should tone down your language a bit. Stallman a "political extremist"? Please, that does such a disservice to real political extremists. Further, he doesn't try to associate himself with civil rights protesters so much as to point out that breaking of rules and even laws can be justified if you believe the aim is worthy. He points out that this has to be a personal decision based on who is doing the rule breaking - sure you can agree with that? "Martyr" is your emotionally laden word. Does that even apply to the examples he gave or did you introduce the word for your own propoganda (I'm thinking of the women suffarage protesters who chained themselves to doors, here, if some of them died I meant no ill will).
I could go on, but have work to do. Heed your own advice.
Did you personally read what he wrote above? The comparison was with the civil rights movement, not slavery.
Furthermore, I believe the intent of his words was not to compare his moral courage or ideals with the two groups brought up, but instead to suggest that breaking of rules and even laws can be justified if the aims are worthy.
That is what he was defending, his breaking of rules, not his moral courage.
The rate that heat is generated isn't a function of the cooling system;
A system with an active cooling system (one that requires energy like this water system) will generate more heat than a system without such a cooling system. 2nd law of thermodynamics, and all.
Depending on the insulation, your system that moves the heat to the components less effected will have to work harder and harder to do so, until the whole system, cooled components and all, will overheat.
Slashdot Mirror
12. If the alien seems upset, offer to rub its head gently. Not only will this ease a tense situation, it will bring you good luck.
I had one of those Kenwood pieces of shit, too. Worked great, for a little while. Will no long read anything. Anyone for a class action law suit.
HAND
HAND
Does everyone in Sweden jump to conclusion from a single statment? ;)
Also, one can disparage IP without rejecting ownership in general.
Wow!
Good one!!
Be, Al, Si, and O are all renewable resourcesd.
Value, worth, social pressures, and traditions are all arbitrary. Decide if you're someone who likes to go along or rebel or somewhere in between, then get on with your life.
Me? I like meat.
I'm not mysterious, I just don't have any interesting qualities.
Name one, band-name-thief.
Why stop there? You don't need to eat the flesh of veggies either. If you really cared about your fellow creature, you would just sit in the sun and photosynthesize.
(grinning, ducking, running)
Try quoting a document that has some legal bearing on the USA. The Declaration doesn't, the Constitution does.
I don't know what you mean by "stop someone from publicly declaring their religion" - the government doesn't do that, nor did it "strike the word god". Perhaps you could explain what you mean?
Or maybe you're just one of these reactionary lunatics who doesn't care much for accuracy or evidence.
Back to the unabbridge speech world: if I speak, anyone else can repeat and modify what I say. This is a right they have, not a property of the speech or a right of mine. If I give out "free software", anyone has similar right to modify and distribute that software as well. This is the right of everyone around, not just me. These rights can't be achieved without source availability. We don't need "source" with speech because our bodies/and minds deal with that. Software requires at least source code to get similar extension of rights.
GPL is only the tool that makes "free software" behave like "free speech" in this regard - not in the cost of the item, but in the rights of others around me. The restriction on the GPL (that says other must do the same) is necessary because software doesn't enjoy the protection of an ammendment and in fact has to cope with additional restriction of copyright law. I'm free to say: "no one else has free speech from this day forward". This has no meaning, but the equivalent in the software world does. The parallel breaks.
You are free to disagree with this, to not use the GPL in your own code, to not use the GPL products, etc. The GPL contributes to a large body of "free software" - that people choose to build upon
Bottom line, Stallman defines exactly what he means by free. His use of "free" is at worst an extension of other common and less common usages. There are no doubts to anyone who takes any time to research these things (ahem, software developers, for example) exactly what he means when he talks about his views, the GPL, his take on "free software", etc. Your repetitive accusations of dishonest tactics really don't fly well in the face of over 20 years of full disclosure of his motivations, beliefs, contracts, licenses, opinions, and source code. Think about it.
I take it from this comment that you didn't read the rest of my comment. Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned your writing seems to appeal to emotion much more than that of Stallman. You seem to introduce hyperbole where he only introduced analogy. You bring up emotionally laden terms where he did not. I've brought up in several threads how I think your assessment of his introduction of the civil rights movements and the women's suffarage movement is overly critical. He discussed motiviations for breaking rules: you called him an extremist and a martyr.
associating Stallman with Clinton (presumably for morals) and "hippies" (presumably for their theivery described by Elton), when he displays the intended characteristics of neither.
When has Stallman ever drunk your milk? Or violated the license of any software you know about to do the supposed IP equivalent?
HAND
Interesting tactic, it seems you used it in the linked article as well. A bit of the old reverse psychology. "Oh dear me, I know I'll be modded down, but someone has to tell it like it is to the horde of slashdot."
On to the meat.
Your objections to Stallman above and in your linked article seem to be tainted by some work you had to do because someone in your company didn't read the license to a bit of software before using it in a compony product. Boo hoo. You should be mad at that person, not the author of that software or the GNU project or Stallman in general.
You go to great lengths to attack Stallman's use of the word "free" and how software (as a non-entitity) can't be free in the way Stallman means it. What about free speech? Right or wrong, the "free" in Stallman's free software speaks about the rights of individuals the same way "free' in "free speech does.
Also, read this again and tell us if you are being more honest than Stallman is:
Oh the irony. Maybe you should tone down your language a bit. Stallman a "political extremist"? Please, that does such a disservice to real political extremists. Further, he doesn't try to associate himself with civil rights protesters so much as to point out that breaking of rules and even laws can be justified if you believe the aim is worthy. He points out that this has to be a personal decision based on who is doing the rule breaking - sure you can agree with that? "Martyr" is your emotionally laden word. Does that even apply to the examples he gave or did you introduce the word for your own propoganda (I'm thinking of the women suffarage protesters who chained themselves to doors, here, if some of them died I meant no ill will).
I could go on, but have work to do. Heed your own advice.
Furthermore, I believe the intent of his words was not to compare his moral courage or ideals with the two groups brought up, but instead to suggest that breaking of rules and even laws can be justified if the aims are worthy.
That is what he was defending, his breaking of rules, not his moral courage.
Why should anyone bother citing anything for you when you can't even bother to log in?
A system with an active cooling system (one that requires energy like this water system) will generate more heat than a system without such a cooling system. 2nd law of thermodynamics, and all.
Depending on the insulation, your system that moves the heat to the components less effected will have to work harder and harder to do so, until the whole system, cooled components and all, will overheat.
That's all I meant.