So, tell me... do you think that, without the motivation of collecting $1 for every signature turned in, that anyone would have bothered to turn this recall election into a reality?
You realize your talking to someone who signed the petition, and who everyone (litteraly) he knows signed the petition without a paid petition gatherer present. I do think it would have happened. I don't think it would have happened as quickly.
But now you tell me what has the more say, money or the people. As I pointed out before, twice (and as much as 5 times) the incentive was given to counter-recall effort, yet it was unable to collect a tenth of the signitures.
Davis's highjinks have even made it on slashdot. You may recall his Oracle bailout of 97 million tax payer dollars. Not only do I remember that but I remember his attempted Enron/energy bailout. More under the radar was his attempted bailout of off-shore oil drillers, pandering to rich beach house owners and more.
To margionalize this as a Republican purchased election denies the disenchantment Democrats have had with Davis also. A good third of the petition had democrat names on it.
Simular recall efforts (even funded ones against Pete Wilson) in California have not gotten anywhere. Davis's approval rating is through the floor, much worse than any other govenor of California ever was.
So you tell me, was it money or genuine hatred of Davis that brought this re-call on.
Darryl Issa, of course. It doesn't matter if he runs or not, all he wants is a right-wing governor so he can make out well personally. He bought himself an election.
I don't take favorably to positions that require indoctination in some version of demonization or another. You've made no counter arguements to mine on the matter, just a re-iteration of a hateful mantra (ewww evil republicans.) Please take the opportunity to engage in discussion rather than reenforcing your claims with reiteration.
No, it was given to create publicity so that people could be propagandized into thinking that the mess in California was all Davis' fault...With enough money, you could convince people to vote for a toaster if the message is crafted in a clever way designed to appeal to emotions and not logic.
Yes, conspiracy theory 101. Ascribe much mind control to the demonic other-people to explain why your opinion is not the popularly held reasonable one.
The invitation to join this as a discussion is open to you. Please refrain from such dogmatic rhetoric.
The significant (30-50% of marriages) number of divorces indicate that whatever the social idea of marriage is, it is not completely congruent with the legal definition of marriage.
I'm not quite following here. A succesful marriage is one that adheres to the legal definition? I'll give that a successful marriage adheres to natural laws of conjenial relationships (decided by evolution, nature, or whomever you consider fashioned humanity, fashioned those laws with unique strictness). But the legal definition is as Henry points out, an acknowledgement of a natural state of heterosexual unions. One that forms a bond that is recognized for certain unique and powerful capacities to determine social health and future social prosperity.
For a homosexual union to be classified the same, shows a marginalization of these capacities and even ignores their importance. Ignoring those capacities is like ignoring the capacity of a person with a gun to either save your life or take it.
When most of the conceptual rules of the institution as well as the relevant laws for marriage were made, women did not have the power to determine rules and laws for marriage;
This is not true. If you went back to 1000BC, you would find a mesopetamia and Egypt that established marriage contracts. The husband and wife (represented by her father more than dictated by her father) would spell out his duties and obligations they would perform and expect from each other. They were then bound by the obligations of that contract.
But more to the point, I'm not sure where you are going with this point either to be honest.
marriage was able to change to accommodate the society in which it is established.
Oddly enough with the freedoms you ascribe to marriage, one would expect a much more broad definition of marriage to have evolved considering the different cultures and empires throughout history. Yet each society seems to always settle on the idea that it requires a man and a woman. One can argue that is an indication that marriage has to do with the relationship as much as the nature mandated endowments that it recieves. The "Love Relationship" that homosexuals claim marraige is based on produces the numbers that you point out, lousy marriages even for heterosexuals.
If gay marriage is a social engineering project, I think that its purpose is to attempt to induce/compel tolerance for gay people by showing that they can live within a similar framework of law and culture.
I'll agree that this is the basic premise of the social engineering. To me it amounts to essentially a dramatic pulling the rug out from under an institution. Most of the benefits that homosexuals consider locked out of, ones mentioned by Georgy, are products of not government interaction but market forces. Marriage benefits to employees and investitures from banks, etc... are all created by market forces on what marriage has meant to them and society. Now changing the definition of marriage rips out the rug underneath these non-governmental forces. The results are not easily predicted, but range from nothing happening to benefits being denied to everyone.
Also, I take personal exception to the notion (as mentioned before) that people who wish to defend the marriage definition are doing so out of hatred, bigotry or another demonic self-fulfilling purpose. I think such charechtarizations are unfair, and unwarranted. As a person whos personally spent a very friendly christmas dinner that included the company of a southern baptist, wicken priestess, child molester, a lesbian couple, and a Mormon couple in one sitting, I can attest to the nature of tolerance and friendship that is possible without having to force "heterosexuals to give up what they think marriage is".
but I have a hard time believing that the concept of gay marriage (particularly in long-term monogomous relationships) will do any more violence to the concept of marriage than has already been done in recent hi
Agreed, whomever moderated that as flamebait was unfair. Much too much of the debate over the defense of marriage is by demonizing both sides. For those defending marriages definition, they are called bigots, discriminatory (as in another word for bigot), and such.
Homosexuals are demonized also, and that is unfortunate. But your comments did not do that. They are very legitimate reasons to continue to consider marriage as a protential product of excuslively heterosexual unions. I thought them very well thought out.
Considering the Judicial legislation going on in Canada to impose homosexual unions on churches as marriage (yes both violating seperation of powers and seperation of church and state), I think the debate needs to be brought out more, not suppressed as "flaimbait". And especially not to a post that had insightful commentary on the issue.
I like her spunk, and her charge that politicians need a shake up. But I don't think she's correct on one particular statement...
Californians should find it frightening that a wealthy Republican can buy himself another election.
This has a few problems.
1) Who is buying themselves another election? I know of no money donations that came from a ex-gubenatorial candidate. Not Simon, or Riordan (who else would know who she might be talking about?). Most of the money was fronted by Darryl Issa, who not only didn't run previously, but is not running now (although he did fill out the papers to run).
2) How is this a purchased election? The money was not given to public officials as a bribe to make another election. It was not given to voters to sign petitions. It was given to only some of the people who watched people sign petitions. They were offered $1 a signature, and its noted that the counter petitions started by Davis put a bounty of $3-5 dollars a signature.
It just seems rather disenginious to call this election "purchased" in any way shape or form. Probably becuase it margionalises how much even Democrats hate Davis.
Neither should be left unattended for three years, or even three months.
The good thing about Gibralter (I use it too) is that I can mail a CD to the client, tell them to replace it in the CD tray, reboot and "whamo" its updated. The server needs more direct intervention.
Yoshiteru Takahashi said he had seen footprints on Mount Dhaulagiri during trips to the world's seventh-highest mountain in the 1970s and 1990s which he believed belonged to the Yeti.
"They (the footprints) were very, very close to human footsteps," Takahashi, the 60-year-old who works in a housing firm in Tokyo, told Reuters.
"I'll take pictures and shake hands if I meet him. But we will not capture it...The existence of that creature has to be proved."
You know, if I were a Yeti that just might be the reassurance I need to arrange a meeting.
Over the past year four Canadian courts have ruled that marriage, recognized under the common law as "the union of one man and one woman," is inconsistent with constitutional values in modern Canadian society and offends the equality rights of homosexuals under section 15 of the Charter. These courts have determined that the existing legal framework for marriage is too narrowly defined and does not offer equitable treatment for non-traditional unions.
Two of the courts acknowledged the unique role of Parliament in formulating a proper response to this question. They gave the federal and provincial legislatures until July 2004 to rectify this situation. On June 10, however, the Ontario Court of Appeal acted unilaterally. It pre-empted further discussion by Parliament by striking down the common law definition of marriage and reformulating it as "the voluntary union for life of two persons." The court ordered that this remedy take effect immediately.
As I recall both of these issues have been settled by popular referendum. I can't get on her site to see what her position is, but hopefully it isn't against what the people have voted for.
I'll tell you why they sell it. I went in to buy memory. Just regular PC133 memory. When I said "give me that one, the 34.99 memory stick" they said...
"Hmm, its Tiawanese."
"I like the Tiawanese!" I said.
"You should use this brand (49.99)."
"Why not the other one?" I asked.
"Its cheap. If you want to, you can. But its up to you".
Little did he know, I'm a computer person and I had perfectly good faith in my purchase. I bought it in any case. While I was leaving I was pondering how Fry's does the Diamond sellers trick. Show people a poor diamond and they won't buy it. But show people a poor diamon and a poorer diamond and they will by the poor one every time.
Yet anyone can enter that wishes to do what it takes. Its not a secret. Its not like "no one named `bill' can know this".
Its not uncommon in society to see behavioural conduct as requirements to be a part of what the constitution considers a "free association". Its considered free becuase the state holds no restrictions on who is associating and what behavioural (as long as those behavoirs are not illegal) restrictions that association feels are a part of its charter.
To restrict all associations to include everyone would be, alas, a restriction on "free association" and is why such restrictions have been stricken down in the courts.
But it is a free association. People simply need to live a certain set of guidelines (membership in the church for a year, honesty in your dealings, fidelity to your wife, no alterior deceptive purposes for going and following a dietary guide). Anyone can really go in there. In fact its often pointed out that 50,000+ people go around the world each year encouraging people to get in.
In the linux world, this is not unlike the reasoning for Debian to have closed mailing lists or requirements to associate on them. A certain basic requirement to make sure people are really there to work and not be contrary to the purpose of the association is not a sinister purpose.
The "free agency" that the Mormon church talks about has nothing to do with Linux.
Your right. One is an operating system the other is a doctrine that states "you can do anything you wish but you can't excape the consequences of your actions".
Are you a convert or life member?
Both...
You ever heard about how the Mormon's practiced communism in the early days of the church (Oh I'm sorry they called something like "the law of concecration")
Probably better refered to as the "United Order" since the law of consecration is not incompatible with the monetary system in the church. People still vow to live that law even without the United Order in practice. It essentially says that you'll join everyone else in devoting everything to a common cause that is important for everyone. That common cause is specific, but essentially that is what its about.
But it isn't communism, specific stewardships are assigned to specific individuals without property being in common. What makes it so socialistic is that people offered there services free of charge to those in need. Mechanics would simply fix the buggies around them, and Doctors would simply heal people without the paper-reciept based economy the US uses. Everyone would work where they could, meaning doctors and laberours would harvest wheat when needed and such. Its may be somewhat socialist, but no property was considerd in common between people.
One could say it works more like the kitzva's (?) in the country of Israel.
If you didn't practice this law, you were execumenicated. (I know i'm spelling that wrong, but you get my poing.)
The pattern was more like they said they'd live it but then got greedy. But I'm not privy to every case. Either way people that never agreed to it were never excommunicated for it (that I'm aware of).
But I'll say that the Linux development model is probably a lot like how software would be developed in the United Order. Linux has been describes as the OS that gives you warm fuzzies for knowing your part of a great help-each-other-out community. I think thats very much in common with the United Order and one of the reasons I love Linux.
While I hate to respond to ad homonem trolls like this,
While I hate to respond to *ad hominem* trolls that don't understand the irony of calling someone else "ad homonem" from their own high horse, I for one share the opinion of the grandparent poster. It isn't "silly" and I don't think the moderators are "clueless" you anti-ad-hominem activist.
In your post drenched with elitist kidney punches, you've failed to work up a congruent point or argument. The only common thread is that it appears to be an appology for those people whos ego's are hardly containable in the worldwide software movements afoot.
At first you say, "First, RMS and Bruce Perens are hardly the 'rule' in open source and free software projects. Quite the contrary, they are exceptional in many respects...". Then in the very first sentence of the next paragraph you say "...their occasional public disagreements and arguments their egos are no more, nor less, developed than those of most male humans above the age of puberty."
While it is possible to shake out a possible context that isn't self-contradictory, it isn't easy and I have nothing here to indicate you intended to do so. One could say that you are drawing a line perpendicular in qualities, dissaccotiating ego with exceptionalness, but I lost hope as your next paragraph followed...
Even the whole GNU/Linux thing has nothing to do with RMS personally (notice that he isn't asking people to call it RMS/Linux), but stems from a desire to get his message about software freedom out to the public at large, and the feeling that the 95% or so of the operating system we call Linux (which includes all of the filesystem tools, etc.) was getting zero recognition and thus, the message behind the writing of those tools (in RMSes opinion) was being lost. Idealistic yes. Stubborn, yes. Egomaniacal? Hardly.
GNU is RMS's baby. As you mentioned they are his product, his foundation, and his cause. To contribute something to the GNU Foundation you must sign over the copywrite. You must acknowledge the GNU Foundation, and you cannot alude to any for payment software even if it was a recently GPL'ed release of said for-payment software.
So while everything GNU must pay hommage to a foundation he is in control of, and in turn pays hommage to him, that isn't enough. Now everything that is made/compiled using GNU stuff must pay hommage also.
Now let me seperate here between GNU and GPL. Certainly in many circumstances no distinction is needed or attempted. But here there is one. GNU created the GPL as the litigant language of the GNU values. It is the legal code that defines a form of freedom, it is the very definition.
One would assume that the GPL carries the values and ideals that you profess RMS cares about so much. To have the GPL amidst the source code, its ideals are spread and recognized in an untaintable form. The distinction here however is that just having the GPL carried along with the Linux code was not good enough for RMS. The distinction here must be drawn then to understand the question "why is not the GPL enough, why must it have GNU in its name too?"
Because to say that its the cause doesn't make sence. The GPL says it plenty well, in both moniker and graphic legalese. Why GNU? Why his baby?
Is it becuase it was made with GNU tools? That is a reason to do it, but isn't consistent with his lack of pursuit with other programs. Is it becuase it is a part of the distribution? Well, as someone pointed out the largest block of code in most distributions is now KDE and Gnome, followed by X11 and TeX. None of those have "GNU/" appended to them.
So if it isn't for cause (spelled out in the GPL), or logistics, then people have a hard time coming up with something other then "ego". And the distiction between GNU and RMS is just way to thin to hide behind as you and even RMS does.
So while their importance and role is debatable, their egos are counter productive. Where you say idealism, its percieved as downright subjucating at times and counter-productive. Its percieved as "ego".
I don't remember AirWolf having a laser, BUT, it was _heavily_ armored
The Laser only showed up in the first three episodes. Its why we couldn't figure out if it really had it or not. And yeah it was heavily armored. I think it had the same paint job as KITT or something like that.
Blue Thunder had the armor plating that even survived a stint with armor piercing bullets.
Heh, this is taking me back to the day. I wonder where the WWWF grudgematch went to. This was the kind of ground they used to cover oh so well.
I think the playground arguement ran aground on whether or not AirWolf really had a laser. If it did, it would win. If not it was anybodies call. Especially since both had missles and anti-missle flares (thats all you need right?) With missles effectively at a standstill the speed of AirWolf wasn't much of an advantage since choppers can fly in the opposite direction they are pointing.
Back then I stuck behind Blue Thunder. And now I do even more. Not much that can get past a 50cal gattling gun. But nowadays I have an even better reason. Becuase anyone that backs AirWolf is just not in touch with reality and is the kind of person who would argue US vs Japan hanging on the outcome of the obvious King Kong vs Godzilla matchup.
But yeah, except for the Dick Van Dyke evil genious ready to take over the world episodes there wasn't any redeeming qualities to the USA network version of AirWolf.
But bring back the origional. The coolest part was that the test pilot got so disgruntled with the company that he stole the chopper, and they still manipulated him to go on missions for them.
That may seem like fantasy, but somehow it had a very resonant chord with my experiences with corporate mentality.
Blue Thunder (police with an Apache helicopter), AutoMan, AirWolf (which was one of those great shows that had no where to go but down).
Boy, there was never a hotter debate topic then AirWolf vs Blue Thunder on our playground.
Re:Demonstrating my ignorance....
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Among those IBM Copywrite's that show up in that grep...
drivers/block/xd.c: { 0x000B,"CRD18A Not an IBM rom. (C) Copyright Data Technology Corp. 05/31/88",xd_dtc_init_controller,xd_dtc_init_drive," DTC 5150X" },/* Todd Fries, tfries@umr.edu */
drivers/scsi/ips.h:#define IPS_LEGALCOPYRIGHT_STRING "(C) Copyright IBM Corp. 1994, 2002. All Rights Reserved."
drivers/net/tokenring/lanstreamer.c: * Copyright (C) 1999 IBM Corporation
drivers/net/wireless/hermes.c: * Copyright (C) 2001, David Gibson, IBM
drivers/char/mwave/mwavepub.h:* Copyright (C) 1999 IBM Corporation
arch/ppc64/kernel/setup.c: * Copyright (C) 2001 PPC64 Team, IBM Corp
scripts/makelst:# Copyright (C) 2000 IBM Corporation
It seems to me that they are in drivers or architecture specific components of their hardware products. Now, if they stole PPC, tokenring, and s390 code from Caldera/SCO I think they have bigger issues then copyrights to worry about.
But I'm not sure about the occurances of the hotplug drivers.
Also, I've found that for 90% of the time that while updating and compiling my box is perfectly usable. Most of the time its doing stuff like downloading, compiling which don't slow down my UI much at all. The only rough times are the actual merges or other disk-intensive work.
While I'm glad that the sniping done by the grandparent post may scare off people looking for the next cool thing, its really just comedy for the "Daily Show" generation.
It does. I won't discount that. And while the opportunity for misunderstanding is great when its used, one shouldn't take that misunderstanding and run with it.
Its better to educate them, and translate what is probably just a difference in buisness/political speak between two different cultures.
Since there is no OSR, I think Bruce feels this is false
Its difficult to tell. Certainly you are allowed to give Bruce the benefit of the doubt. But it seems to me that Bruce feels he is false the same way he felt various organizations had strayed from the true path and started his own. To me its clearly ideological differences that drives his his focus in such pecking-order politics as this point.
What I was referring to is that the title of the/. article places the word "False" in quotation marks while it is not that way on Bruce's web site
Precious little difference since its clear Bruce is maligning Mr Taylor as a "false" OSR (Bruce's words), don't you think? It wasn't in doubt in the first two paragraphs of your post. Thats simply my point, Bruce is conjuring up strawmen when he alludes to Mr Taylor as an OSR.
Where the ffii.org people label him as a representative is suspect, and while they probably do not know better Bruce should. Some people simply don't split the hair between "liason", "translator" and "representative". They should be educated on the point, and Bruce is certainly capable of that. But instead Bruce gets ego-tripped up on the point and it foils what otherwise would have been a good piece.
Bruce is certainly welcome to his opinion. How fashionable it is to defend a poorly constructed op-ed piece however with a flag of free-speach. How useless it is to wave it in people's faces as if they didn't already know that. To point out that his belayings are couched in counter-productive rudeness and inflamatory allutions does not in any way attempt to take away someone's right to an opinion.
I never understand why people say that. Nothing ever follows those words but misunderstanding. If it were understood then there wouldn't be a question of logic.
wouldn't Mr. Taylor be a "False Open Source Representative"
That is only vaccuously true. His status of "open source rep" seems only to be of concern to Bruce who has many times asserted himself as a representative of open source.
you think it would be less imflammatory
You really don't get it do you. Its right there but for some reason your stuck on this OSR title. There is no title. Don't even use it. Mr Taylor isn't, Bruce should know better, and after these posts one would figure you would too.
Incidentally, the article to/. was not posted by Bruce.
He was quoting Bruce directly (hence the quotes). His opening sentence calls Mr Taylor either a misguided or "False" open source representative.
Mr. Taylor wasn't on the general ballot for "Representative of the entire O.S.S. Community"
My problem is, that title was given by Bruce in complete straw-man fashion. There is no such title, Bruce should know better.
you are killing the messenger in this case.
Messengers would do wise to not embellish their messages with undue inflamatory accusations. Once again Bruce has thwarted what would otherwise be a very good point with the inclusion of pecking order pettyness.
Is this a corporation? What process is there to decide who representatives are? I think to call Mr Taylor(?) a false representative is just Bruce's usual rhetoric that really doesn't get it.
I still rember the first article that crashed slashdot. Bruce had made a troll so bad (good?) that Slashdot ranked up over 1000 posts, many calling for Bruce to step down in his "official" leadership position.
Well Bruce stepped down, only to lead those that followed on some Maddona like "new fashionable" organization after another. In a short time He had created two (three?) more organizations where he was the leader only to remove himself from all of them.
I think Bruce has done a fair job helping companies open their products (although for the life of me I don't know a one that he's actually gotten opened) don't get me wrong. But calling another advocate "false" becuase you think they don't agree with your position is immature. Thinking that your position represents "Open Source" simply means you don't get it.
Slashdot Mirror
So, tell me... do you think that, without the motivation of collecting $1 for every signature turned in, that anyone would have bothered to turn this recall election into a reality?
You realize your talking to someone who signed the petition, and who everyone (litteraly) he knows signed the petition without a paid petition gatherer present. I do think it would have happened. I don't think it would have happened as quickly.
But now you tell me what has the more say, money or the people. As I pointed out before, twice (and as much as 5 times) the incentive was given to counter-recall effort, yet it was unable to collect a tenth of the signitures.
Davis's highjinks have even made it on slashdot. You may recall his Oracle bailout of 97 million tax payer dollars. Not only do I remember that but I remember his attempted Enron/energy bailout. More under the radar was his attempted bailout of off-shore oil drillers, pandering to rich beach house owners and more.
To margionalize this as a Republican purchased election denies the disenchantment Democrats have had with Davis also. A good third of the petition had democrat names on it.
Simular recall efforts (even funded ones against Pete Wilson) in California have not gotten anywhere. Davis's approval rating is through the floor, much worse than any other govenor of California ever was.
So you tell me, was it money or genuine hatred of Davis that brought this re-call on.
Darryl Issa, of course. It doesn't matter if he runs or not, all he wants is a right-wing governor so he can make out well personally. He bought himself an election.
I don't take favorably to positions that require indoctination in some version of demonization or another. You've made no counter arguements to mine on the matter, just a re-iteration of a hateful mantra (ewww evil republicans.) Please take the opportunity to engage in discussion rather than reenforcing your claims with reiteration.
No, it was given to create publicity so that people could be propagandized into thinking that the mess in California was all Davis' fault...With enough money, you could convince people to vote for a toaster if the message is crafted in a clever way designed to appeal to emotions and not logic.
Yes, conspiracy theory 101. Ascribe much mind control to the demonic other-people to explain why your opinion is not the popularly held reasonable one.
The invitation to join this as a discussion is open to you. Please refrain from such dogmatic rhetoric.
The significant (30-50% of marriages) number of divorces indicate that whatever the social idea of marriage is, it is not completely congruent with the legal definition of marriage.
I'm not quite following here. A succesful marriage is one that adheres to the legal definition? I'll give that a successful marriage adheres to natural laws of conjenial relationships (decided by evolution, nature, or whomever you consider fashioned humanity, fashioned those laws with unique strictness). But the legal definition is as Henry points out, an acknowledgement of a natural state of heterosexual unions. One that forms a bond that is recognized for certain unique and powerful capacities to determine social health and future social prosperity.
For a homosexual union to be classified the same, shows a marginalization of these capacities and even ignores their importance. Ignoring those capacities is like ignoring the capacity of a person with a gun to either save your life or take it.
When most of the conceptual rules of the institution as well as the relevant laws for marriage were made, women did not have the power to determine rules and laws for marriage;
This is not true. If you went back to 1000BC, you would find a mesopetamia and Egypt that established marriage contracts. The husband and wife (represented by her father more than dictated by her father) would spell out his duties and obligations they would perform and expect from each other. They were then bound by the obligations of that contract.
But more to the point, I'm not sure where you are going with this point either to be honest.
marriage was able to change to accommodate the society in which it is established.
Oddly enough with the freedoms you ascribe to marriage, one would expect a much more broad definition of marriage to have evolved considering the different cultures and empires throughout history. Yet each society seems to always settle on the idea that it requires a man and a woman. One can argue that is an indication that marriage has to do with the relationship as much as the nature mandated endowments that it recieves. The "Love Relationship" that homosexuals claim marraige is based on produces the numbers that you point out, lousy marriages even for heterosexuals.
If gay marriage is a social engineering project, I think that its purpose is to attempt to induce/compel tolerance for gay people by showing that they can live within a similar framework of law and culture.
I'll agree that this is the basic premise of the social engineering. To me it amounts to essentially a dramatic pulling the rug out from under an institution. Most of the benefits that homosexuals consider locked out of, ones mentioned by Georgy, are products of not government interaction but market forces. Marriage benefits to employees and investitures from banks, etc... are all created by market forces on what marriage has meant to them and society. Now changing the definition of marriage rips out the rug underneath these non-governmental forces. The results are not easily predicted, but range from nothing happening to benefits being denied to everyone.
Also, I take personal exception to the notion (as mentioned before) that people who wish to defend the marriage definition are doing so out of hatred, bigotry or another demonic self-fulfilling purpose. I think such charechtarizations are unfair, and unwarranted. As a person whos personally spent a very friendly christmas dinner that included the company of a southern baptist, wicken priestess, child molester, a lesbian couple, and a Mormon couple in one sitting, I can attest to the nature of tolerance and friendship that is possible without having to force "heterosexuals to give up what they think marriage is".
but I have a hard time believing that the concept of gay marriage (particularly in long-term monogomous relationships) will do any more violence to the concept of marriage than has already been done in recent hi
Agreed, whomever moderated that as flamebait was unfair. Much too much of the debate over the defense of marriage is by demonizing both sides. For those defending marriages definition, they are called bigots, discriminatory (as in another word for bigot), and such.
Homosexuals are demonized also, and that is unfortunate. But your comments did not do that. They are very legitimate reasons to continue to consider marriage as a protential product of excuslively heterosexual unions. I thought them very well thought out.
Considering the Judicial legislation going on in Canada to impose homosexual unions on churches as marriage (yes both violating seperation of powers and seperation of church and state), I think the debate needs to be brought out more, not suppressed as "flaimbait". And especially not to a post that had insightful commentary on the issue.
I like her spunk, and her charge that politicians need a shake up. But I don't think she's correct on one particular statement...
Californians should find it frightening that a wealthy Republican can buy himself another election.
This has a few problems.
1) Who is buying themselves another election? I know of no money donations that came from a ex-gubenatorial candidate. Not Simon, or Riordan (who else would know who she might be talking about?). Most of the money was fronted by Darryl Issa, who not only didn't run previously, but is not running now (although he did fill out the papers to run).
2) How is this a purchased election? The money was not given to public officials as a bribe to make another election. It was not given to voters to sign petitions. It was given to only some of the people who watched people sign petitions. They were offered $1 a signature, and its noted that the counter petitions started by Davis put a bounty of $3-5 dollars a signature.
It just seems rather disenginious to call this election "purchased" in any way shape or form. Probably becuase it margionalises how much even Democrats hate Davis.
Something about this seems like a global scale Core Wars game. How scary, horrible and cool at the same time.
Neither should be left unattended for three years, or even three months.
The good thing about Gibralter (I use it too) is that I can mail a CD to the client, tell them to replace it in the CD tray, reboot and "whamo" its updated. The server needs more direct intervention.
You know, if I were a Yeti that just might be the reassurance I need to arrange a meeting.
From this page...
legalization of marijuana and gay marriages
As I recall both of these issues have been settled by popular referendum. I can't get on her site to see what her position is, but hopefully it isn't against what the people have voted for.
I'll tell you why they sell it. I went in to buy memory. Just regular PC133 memory. When I said "give me that one, the 34.99 memory stick" they said...
"Hmm, its Tiawanese."
"I like the Tiawanese!" I said.
"You should use this brand (49.99)."
"Why not the other one?" I asked.
"Its cheap. If you want to, you can. But its up to you".
Little did he know, I'm a computer person and I had perfectly good faith in my purchase. I bought it in any case. While I was leaving I was pondering how Fry's does the Diamond sellers trick. Show people a poor diamond and they won't buy it. But show people a poor diamon and a poorer diamond and they will by the poor one every time.
Could explain why they are using ThizLinux.
for talking about what goes on the in the temple.
Yet anyone can enter that wishes to do what it takes. Its not a secret. Its not like "no one named `bill' can know this".
Its not uncommon in society to see behavioural conduct as requirements to be a part of what the constitution considers a "free association". Its considered free becuase the state holds no restrictions on who is associating and what behavioural (as long as those behavoirs are not illegal) restrictions that association feels are a part of its charter.
To restrict all associations to include everyone would be, alas, a restriction on "free association" and is why such restrictions have been stricken down in the courts.
But it is a free association. People simply need to live a certain set of guidelines (membership in the church for a year, honesty in your dealings, fidelity to your wife, no alterior deceptive purposes for going and following a dietary guide). Anyone can really go in there. In fact its often pointed out that 50,000+ people go around the world each year encouraging people to get in.
In the linux world, this is not unlike the reasoning for Debian to have closed mailing lists or requirements to associate on them. A certain basic requirement to make sure people are really there to work and not be contrary to the purpose of the association is not a sinister purpose.
The "free agency" that the Mormon church talks about has nothing to do with Linux.
Your right. One is an operating system the other is a doctrine that states "you can do anything you wish but you can't excape the consequences of your actions".
Are you a convert or life member?
Both...
You ever heard about how the Mormon's practiced communism in the early days of the church (Oh I'm sorry they called something like "the law of concecration")
Probably better refered to as the "United Order" since the law of consecration is not incompatible with the monetary system in the church. People still vow to live that law even without the United Order in practice. It essentially says that you'll join everyone else in devoting everything to a common cause that is important for everyone. That common cause is specific, but essentially that is what its about.
But it isn't communism, specific stewardships are assigned to specific individuals without property being in common. What makes it so socialistic is that people offered there services free of charge to those in need. Mechanics would simply fix the buggies around them, and Doctors would simply heal people without the paper-reciept based economy the US uses. Everyone would work where they could, meaning doctors and laberours would harvest wheat when needed and such. Its may be somewhat socialist, but no property was considerd in common between people.
One could say it works more like the kitzva's (?) in the country of Israel.
If you didn't practice this law, you were execumenicated. (I know i'm spelling that wrong, but you get my poing.)
The pattern was more like they said they'd live it but then got greedy. But I'm not privy to every case. Either way people that never agreed to it were never excommunicated for it (that I'm aware of).
But I'll say that the Linux development model is probably a lot like how software would be developed in the United Order. Linux has been describes as the OS that gives you warm fuzzies for knowing your part of a great help-each-other-out community. I think thats very much in common with the United Order and one of the reasons I love Linux.
You've got issues, my friend.
While I hate to respond to ad homonem trolls like this,
While I hate to respond to *ad hominem* trolls that don't understand the irony of calling someone else "ad homonem" from their own high horse, I for one share the opinion of the grandparent poster. It isn't "silly" and I don't think the moderators are "clueless" you anti-ad-hominem activist.
In your post drenched with elitist kidney punches, you've failed to work up a congruent point or argument. The only common thread is that it appears to be an appology for those people whos ego's are hardly containable in the worldwide software movements afoot.
At first you say, "First, RMS and Bruce Perens are hardly the 'rule' in open source and free software projects. Quite the contrary, they are exceptional in many respects...". Then in the very first sentence of the next paragraph you say "...their occasional public disagreements and arguments their egos are no more, nor less, developed than those of most male humans above the age of puberty."
While it is possible to shake out a possible context that isn't self-contradictory, it isn't easy and I have nothing here to indicate you intended to do so. One could say that you are drawing a line perpendicular in qualities, dissaccotiating ego with exceptionalness, but I lost hope as your next paragraph followed...
GNU is RMS's baby. As you mentioned they are his product, his foundation, and his cause. To contribute something to the GNU Foundation you must sign over the copywrite. You must acknowledge the GNU Foundation, and you cannot alude to any for payment software even if it was a recently GPL'ed release of said for-payment software.
So while everything GNU must pay hommage to a foundation he is in control of, and in turn pays hommage to him, that isn't enough. Now everything that is made/compiled using GNU stuff must pay hommage also.
Now let me seperate here between GNU and GPL. Certainly in many circumstances no distinction is needed or attempted. But here there is one. GNU created the GPL as the litigant language of the GNU values. It is the legal code that defines a form of freedom, it is the very definition.
One would assume that the GPL carries the values and ideals that you profess RMS cares about so much. To have the GPL amidst the source code, its ideals are spread and recognized in an untaintable form. The distinction here however is that just having the GPL carried along with the Linux code was not good enough for RMS. The distinction here must be drawn then to understand the question "why is not the GPL enough, why must it have GNU in its name too?"
Because to say that its the cause doesn't make sence. The GPL says it plenty well, in both moniker and graphic legalese. Why GNU? Why his baby?
Is it becuase it was made with GNU tools? That is a reason to do it, but isn't consistent with his lack of pursuit with other programs. Is it becuase it is a part of the distribution? Well, as someone pointed out the largest block of code in most distributions is now KDE and Gnome, followed by X11 and TeX. None of those have "GNU/" appended to them.
So if it isn't for cause (spelled out in the GPL), or logistics, then people have a hard time coming up with something other then "ego". And the distiction between GNU and RMS is just way to thin to hide behind as you and even RMS does.
So while their importance and role is debatable, their egos are counter productive. Where you say idealism, its percieved as downright subjucating at times and counter-productive. Its percieved as "ego".
I don't remember AirWolf having a laser, BUT, it was _heavily_ armored
The Laser only showed up in the first three episodes. Its why we couldn't figure out if it really had it or not. And yeah it was heavily armored. I think it had the same paint job as KITT or something like that.
Blue Thunder had the armor plating that even survived a stint with armor piercing bullets.
Heh, this is taking me back to the day. I wonder where the WWWF grudgematch went to. This was the kind of ground they used to cover oh so well.
re: Airwolf & disgruntled test pilot
Oh yeah, I remember now.
I think the playground arguement ran aground on whether or not AirWolf really had a laser. If it did, it would win. If not it was anybodies call. Especially since both had missles and anti-missle flares (thats all you need right?) With missles effectively at a standstill the speed of AirWolf wasn't much of an advantage since choppers can fly in the opposite direction they are pointing.
Back then I stuck behind Blue Thunder. And now I do even more. Not much that can get past a 50cal gattling gun. But nowadays I have an even better reason. Becuase anyone that backs AirWolf is just not in touch with reality and is the kind of person who would argue US vs Japan hanging on the outcome of the obvious King Kong vs Godzilla matchup.
But yeah, except for the Dick Van Dyke evil genious ready to take over the world episodes there wasn't any redeeming qualities to the USA network version of AirWolf.
But bring back the origional. The coolest part was that the test pilot got so disgruntled with the company that he stole the chopper, and they still manipulated him to go on missions for them.
That may seem like fantasy, but somehow it had a very resonant chord with my experiences with corporate mentality.
Blue Thunder (police with an Apache helicopter), AutoMan, AirWolf (which was one of those great shows that had no where to go but down).
Boy, there was never a hotter debate topic then AirWolf vs Blue Thunder on our playground.
Among those IBM Copywrite's that show up in that grep...
drivers/block/xd.c: { 0x000B,"CRD18A Not an IBM rom. (C) Copyright Data Technology Corp. 05/31/88",xd_dtc_init_controller,xd_dtc_init_driv
drivers/scsi/ips.h:#define IPS_LEGALCOPYRIGHT_STRING "(C) Copyright IBM Corp. 1994, 2002. All Rights Reserved."
drivers/net/tokenring/lanstreamer.c: * Copyright (C) 1999 IBM Corporation
drivers/net/wireless/hermes.c: * Copyright (C) 2001, David Gibson, IBM
drivers/char/mwave/mwavepub.h:* Copyright (C) 1999 IBM Corporation
arch/ppc64/kernel/setup.c: * Copyright (C) 2001 PPC64 Team, IBM Corp
scripts/makelst:# Copyright (C) 2000 IBM Corporation
It seems to me that they are in drivers or architecture specific components of their hardware products. Now, if they stole PPC, tokenring, and s390 code from Caldera/SCO I think they have bigger issues then copyrights to worry about.
But I'm not sure about the occurances of the hotplug drivers.
Also, I've found that for 90% of the time that while updating and compiling my box is perfectly usable. Most of the time its doing stuff like downloading, compiling which don't slow down my UI much at all. The only rough times are the actual merges or other disk-intensive work.
While I'm glad that the sniping done by the grandparent post may scare off people looking for the next cool thing, its really just comedy for the "Daily Show" generation.
Book Club President: "And who else but the book club can see the sub texts in Judy Blume!?"
Ingrid Third: "Judy Blume has no subtext, but she is really good"
does it bother you that ffii.org claims there is?
It does. I won't discount that. And while the opportunity for misunderstanding is great when its used, one shouldn't take that misunderstanding and run with it.
Its better to educate them, and translate what is probably just a difference in buisness/political speak between two different cultures.
Since there is no OSR, I think Bruce feels this is false
/. article places the word "False" in quotation marks while it is not that way on Bruce's web site
Its difficult to tell. Certainly you are allowed to give Bruce the benefit of the doubt. But it seems to me that Bruce feels he is false the same way he felt various organizations had strayed from the true path and started his own. To me its clearly ideological differences that drives his his focus in such pecking-order politics as this point.
What I was referring to is that the title of the
Precious little difference since its clear Bruce is maligning Mr Taylor as a "false" OSR (Bruce's words), don't you think? It wasn't in doubt in the first two paragraphs of your post. Thats simply my point, Bruce is conjuring up strawmen when he alludes to Mr Taylor as an OSR.
Where the ffii.org people label him as a representative is suspect, and while they probably do not know better Bruce should. Some people simply don't split the hair between "liason", "translator" and "representative". They should be educated on the point, and Bruce is certainly capable of that. But instead Bruce gets ego-tripped up on the point and it foils what otherwise would have been a good piece.
Bruce is certainly welcome to his opinion. How fashionable it is to defend a poorly constructed op-ed piece however with a flag of free-speach. How useless it is to wave it in people's faces as if they didn't already know that. To point out that his belayings are couched in counter-productive rudeness and inflamatory allutions does not in any way attempt to take away someone's right to an opinion.
Well, by your logic
/. was not posted by Bruce.
I never understand why people say that. Nothing ever follows those words but misunderstanding. If it were understood then there wouldn't be a question of logic.
wouldn't Mr. Taylor be a "False Open Source Representative"
That is only vaccuously true. His status of "open source rep" seems only to be of concern to Bruce who has many times asserted himself as a representative of open source.
you think it would be less imflammatory
You really don't get it do you. Its right there but for some reason your stuck on this OSR title. There is no title. Don't even use it. Mr Taylor isn't, Bruce should know better, and after these posts one would figure you would too.
Incidentally, the article to
He was quoting Bruce directly (hence the quotes). His opening sentence calls Mr Taylor either a misguided or "False" open source representative.
Mr. Taylor wasn't on the general ballot for "Representative of the entire O.S.S. Community"
My problem is, that title was given by Bruce in complete straw-man fashion. There is no such title, Bruce should know better.
you are killing the messenger in this case.
Messengers would do wise to not embellish their messages with undue inflamatory accusations. Once again Bruce has thwarted what would otherwise be a very good point with the inclusion of pecking order pettyness.
Is this a corporation? What process is there to decide who representatives are? I think to call Mr Taylor(?) a false representative is just Bruce's usual rhetoric that really doesn't get it.
I still rember the first article that crashed slashdot. Bruce had made a troll so bad (good?) that Slashdot ranked up over 1000 posts, many calling for Bruce to step down in his "official" leadership position.
Well Bruce stepped down, only to lead those that followed on some Maddona like "new fashionable" organization after another. In a short time He had created two (three?) more organizations where he was the leader only to remove himself from all of them.
I think Bruce has done a fair job helping companies open their products (although for the life of me I don't know a one that he's actually gotten opened) don't get me wrong. But calling another advocate "false" becuase you think they don't agree with your position is immature. Thinking that your position represents "Open Source" simply means you don't get it.