There seems to be a large disconnect in this thread between long term apple customers and other early adopters.
The reason this is a big deal to apple customers is that in terms of apple's history this much of a drop after such a time is unprecedented. In other parts of the tech sector a 33% drop in price after 2 months may not be uncommon, but just for apple it is. There is another reason this is a big deal for apple customers, in the past with their ipod line, except when the first 20gb model, when a capacity of ipod has gone down in price, it has also been revised so that there was a discernible difference between people with the last gen high-end model, and people with the current gen cheaper low-end model. With this price reduction there is no early adopter badge.
I don't hold the editors on a pedestal, and I'm not trying to defend them, but don't you think that it is just a little ironic that you've put nothing in your comment to substantiate your claim that some one else post unsubstantiated claims?
Also, in my opinion, your second paragraph strays into the realm of FUD itself. Mr. Pot I think thou protests about Mr. Kettle too much.
Doing other games should be good for them. There is a finite limit to the number of sequels you can make without having new ideas in the game. Other games with different premise will challenge them to do different things some of which might be very good to bring to a future series of metroid games. The way I see it, them taking a break keeps metroid from getting stale. I wish them well with all their future endeavors, (unless they get sold to microsoft)
By using them as the foundation for a lawsuit the MPAA violated the copyrights related to those emails. So torrentspy should countersue for the value attached to the infringement, the cost of the settlement from the lawsuit plus torrentspy's lawyer costs.
1) BSD: This is good code, we want people to be able to use it, maybe it will work to our advantage, and we want the copyright to stay clear so people who modify our code can't accidentally claim copyright and sue others who started with our code.
2) FSF: The end user should be able to hack their devices we'll tempt device manufacturers with good code whose license requires the manufacturer to keep the device and code open.
3) Linus?: I want the best code available for people to use, which means giving away my code, but also getting the improvements of others back.
the visual voicemail and SMS would still be non functioning due to software needed on the AT&T network.
The engadget article says that SMS works.
I think you are confusing the special way the phone shows the SMS messages stored on it, with a special network feature. If not and I am wrong, can you please give me a link to where you read about the SMS stuff? Thanks!
working email
Which must include a host name, which will include a domain name, which must be registered with a working email address, which must include a host name, which must include a domain name, which must be registered with a working email address,...........
I love when the definition of a system implicitly requires a first system to exist without ever specifying that system or what to do should that first system go away.
I'm not sure I buy that argument. Your argument is based on people deciding to watch a new network as a consequence of just having it. I argue that that is not the case. Often it is advertisement on other networks that makes one want to view programs on another network. And then advertisements on that network for their other programs might lead to one watching those.
Personally I there has not really been much of a time that I didn't wish I had one or two more channels then I do. That doesn't mean that I want 40 more channels.
are they even allowed to do this? "Oh, well, we can't be bothered to make a system for your operating system, so we'll just force you to use something else!" Duh... This is a probation, which means that the alternative is Prison, so I think that as long as they don't take away any more freedoms then would be taken away by sending him to Prison that they are allowed to do it.
It was a miracle that Lord of the Rings didn't suck, but the truth is that it was far from perfect...
At least they didn't turn it into a musical (wrong Jackson for that). They would have had to extend it out to about 14 hours, and have shrieking breastplated women on horses, the hero singing to his sword, supernatural beings crooning while leaving the world...
Wait a sec... didn't someone already do that?
Factual bogus-ness too much. Must Correct.
1. Der Ring des Nibelungen predates The Lord of the Ring, and thus is not a derivative work, and so ther's nothing to extend.
2. Der Ring des Nibelungen is not a single it is a series of operas.
3. Operas are not musicals.
4. I still can't get over the proposition that Der Ring des Nibelungen is a derivative work, that I am going to point out that, not being a derivative work of The Lord of the Rings, the shrieking woman and singing to the sword were not added, they just are.
5. Musicals, and Operas for that matter were/are often loosely based on common stories, but not intended to be canonical versions of the literature they are based on. They are intended to be new art with a framework that helps the audience relate. So if you are going to judge the musical judge it on the standard of musicals, not as a translation of literature.
Yes, it means exactly what he thinks it means. This whole thing with calling hackers "security researchers" is just silly beyond belief. Both of these little peccadilloes in terminology are reasons that no one who really counts takes the Slashsnot crowd very seriously.
I don't think you know what he thinks it really means. I think he want's to use hacking as a generic term, for doing stuff as in "I hacked together a working PC form all the junk in my basement" or "I hacked that new feature into my existing code.", and so the poster and many people who like using the word hacker for themselves but don't want others to immediately associate themselves with criminal hackers, tried to coin a new term for those people, "crackers". And while that term never caught on people who want you to call criminal hackers crackers, will always make issue of calling them hackers in the hope that one day they might call themselves hackers, with out any of the negative connotations.
Interestingly enough many people who take that position try to use defend their strictly non-criminal activity use of the word by citing the famous MIT non computer hacks. The irony of this of course is that many of those involved minor criminal activity like breaking and entering.
How is considering driving to be a privilege instead of a right, making it a police state? If I chose to have friends that live miles from me, and I chose not to live somewhere with convenient mass transit then there is no reason why I have to be allowed to drive. If driving where a right there would not be drivers licenses, and cars would not need to be inspected.
Society has not mandated cars. There are many people without cars that do quite nicely, especially in major metropolitan areas. There are some people who live lives that are highly dependent on cars, but the majority of those people made the choices to end up that way.
Finally if driving were a right, it would not be denied to so many handicapped people. I don't think a single blind person has had a driver's license. Rights are things that can not be denied. Driving is something that can and will be.
As for the scanning and storing, It's really not that bad. The police to citizen ratio has gone way down so now must of us don't know are police, but it wasn't always that way, and in those days the police could largely do the same thing, except with their human knowledge of you and their memory. Since that time we have given them less, and they are finally just learning how to do more with it.
Unfortunately as far as RMS is concerned the GPL is about getting rid of black boxes. It goes back to the printer story. When Stallman buys something he wants to be able to hack it. For him free software is a bit of a trojan horse. The horse is the good software that is more economical to use then starting from scratch, the trojan soldiers are that by bringing this code into your proverbial gates, because of the licensing you have also give the end user the right to hack the device. That's why tivoisation is "bad" according to him. He doesn't care about getting the changes from tivo. He's a master programmer, why would he need their code except to hack it. And if you look at a lot of the sagas concerning emacs development and forks because of his project management style you will see this to be true.
For some people free software is about sharing each others brilliance, for RMS it's about being personally Soo brilliant that others will give you more "freedoms" in order to take advantage of that brilliance.
If these asses are pulling energy from Earth's magnet field (and if it looks like free energy, they probably are), somebody please stop them, we need it.
But if we don't know any plausible consequences of the technology, the energy is free, clean, and green right?
There is no free energy. If we take energy from the machinery that keeps the planet habitable, we will cause changes. While change isn't necessarily bad it's also not necessarily reversible, so maybe we want to tread a bit more lightly, until we really can plot the changes we are setting into motion. Energy efficiency is more important then energy sources.
How many times does this perception have to be fixed. You can change the physical sim. The thing that is restricted is using another carrier, which is common on US phones. In the end of the day the reason for this is our messed up publicly traded stock system. Rather then just being used for long term investment, there are now many people who try to skim money off our economy by taking advantage of short term fluctuations of relative stock value. This has resulted in a more volatile market, where companies are valued, not on their real value, but on their rate of growth and sometimes even the rate of their rate of growth. This can result in a successful company ending up vastly undervalued, and often when this happens they get bought out to the detriment of the company. And in this world being able to make long term profit estimates is very important, and as a consequence of greed and the corporate corruption that stemmed from that greed, we have fairly strict laws about what profit you can say that you expect. And cell phone contracts come out of that, ATT gets to declare more expected earnings from me if they have a 2 year contract with them, then if I am just month to month. Of course this has meant that once the market adjusted to the 1 year contracts they had to go to 18 month and now 2 year. I would be surprised if we made it to the end of the decade without the standard contract being 2.5 years.
This is definitely a good thing. Definitely. Definitely.
I may be bucking the general consensus, but a lot of people would not consider this a good thing.
First, there are the religious types, who dissapprove because "that's how God made them."
Then there are the parents (religious or not) who say "my child is special and I wouldn't want them any other way." You'd be surprised how often this sentiment gets expressed.
Not everyone believes that (and I don't mean it in a negative sense) is a laudible goal for science. This might make me seem like a nut job, but while I don't go in for the whole eugenics thing that the parent linked to, I do think that people should consider the consequences to humanity if people who due to genetic conditions would not be able to pass on their genetic condition are. Aside from the fact that that means the number of members of the next generation that need to be treated for this condition will be higher, it also means that as time goes by a higher percentage of the population will have the condition and that is a higher percentage of society that will rely on sophisticated medical intervention to be a fully productive (In this case fully productive includes replacing yourself) member of society. Which would be problematic if humanity or any isolated portion of it (say, a colony on another in another solar system that has to survive for generations before any remotely originating assistance can be rendered) is deprived of our current level of technology for a generation or two. Of course the solution to this should be restrictions on procreation of treated people rather then a restriction on treatment, in a world where procreation is an inalienable right. But if we're sure that no asteroid will hit, and no nuclear wars will happen, and we'll only leave the solar system after we've figured out how to get to where we are going in less then a decade then consequences be damned.
I agree with you in principal the children with special needs should not be allowed to suffer because of it when preventable. However given that in our society in most regards parents have precedence over society with regard to most child rearing decisions, and given that the rules of our society are set up to allow for many different systems of belief to coexist, the change you have proposed to our societal rules is impossible. If you want to make that change you must first either limit the scope of acceptable diverse beliefs, or increase the amount of control the society is allowed to exert with regard to how children are raised.
Additionally I would like to voice my agreement for the autistic individual's sentiment that different is not necessarily worse.
Except the school board isn't stuck with the bill. At least in that the individuals on the board don't have to pay it. It isn't going to affect their salary or anything in any way. The money will have to come from them cutting back on other educational expenses. So the people who are going to suffer are the kids who weren't even born when the deal was made.
In terms of suffering, it's IBM who has suffered. Most computer manufacturers have educational pricing that is deeply discounted, so IBM wasn't making a lot of money off those machines to begin with. And if IBM had had that money in had they probably would have done something with it more then letting it be devalued by inflation without hindrance. So IBM gave up money on the machines, gave up money in the form of postponing the debt, and losing because of a lack of interest to make up for inflation.
The facts for the children are that their school system is better then it would be if it had paid that money before now. The expenditure was one with a limited life span anyhow, which has passed, so it's not like they are hurting a lot from not having the equipment. They haven't had their school system go further into the red to pay to keep that equipment on a maintenance contract after the point where that is a loss. So the school system is healthy for them today. And what's even better is that the
timing of the re-payment was worked out so as to have minimal impact.
Also from a completely cynical point of view, I would like to point out that it is CA state legislators involved, as opposed to locals. What intrest does that state legislation have in the interest of a regional board of ed. Well I would not be surprised if they were looking to tighten their own budget, and gee it would be nice if they could short that school district 1.25m but know that they would be ok, so that 1.25m more of pork could survive. yeah IBM should suffer so that pork might live.
actually, it will only require one.. a method for freezing water that doesn't cause it to expand.
the biggest problem with cold storage of humans is ice expands when it freezes, bursting cells.
the whole basis of ice-9 was finding a new arrangement of h20 so that it wanted to become a solid when it touched other cells.. but it was a different 'stack' of molecules.
Wasn't there an article recently about how they have discovered that it was bringing someone back from a hear failure that was the most damaging part? I imagine that they'd need to solve that first.
an interview that would evaluate their need for this type of gun
I'm not a gun person, but if the founding fathers had only had the guns the government deemed that they needed then we wouldn't have one our independence. In this country people have a right to bear arms, and it's not to hunt, it's to form militias if so desired. If we want to change this sort of thing, step 1, is to change or remove the 2nd amendment. Which makes sense because militias are no longer used in law enforcement and there has become such a huge disparity between the stuff the military has and the stuff the populace has that we could never succeed in a revolt against an illegal tyrannical government anyway.
as well as strength of character necessary for a responsible owner.
Wow. You really want to go there? Because I'm pretty sure that having not accepted the flying spaghetti monster as your own personal savior, you don't have the strength of character needed to responsibly do anything important, like vote, or speak freely.
Farmers can kill, repel or immobilize wild animals by weapons that are not likely to kill humans. a lot of the dangerous wildlife out there is dangerous because it is big enough to be, which often means harder to kill then a human.
If you don't like the terms of GPLv3 then don't use it, and certainly don't complain about code others wrote and gave to you without cost, asking only that you return the favor, and release any improvements you DISTRIBUTE back for others to use and improve. If you don't like GPLv3, just don't use it.
The GPLv3 is looking for more. Tivo Distributes back the code they use. v3 is looking to make it so that Hardware distributed with and running GPL'ed code not prevent derivitive versions from working.
In theory there already is a work around. A device manufacturer can make hardware with checksum checking, and then have the end user get a version of the code that matches the checksum. If the code that matches the checksum isn't tied to the hardware and is freely avaiable to all. Of course the ironic thing about that, is that the consumer would then be unable to sell the device without clearing the code, which depending on the devices setup might mean bricking the device. So in this way the GPL might prevent resale, which I don't think is the intent.
We live in a world where not everyone considers all the evidence to come to their own conclusions. Where not everyone speaks with an equal voice, or has their ideas considered equally. In this setting often the only way to increase your standing is to associate with or topple someone with a loud voice. So in this system association with RMS is a commodity. And he exerts that power that that commidty grants him to pursue his own agenda, and there is nothing that is wrong with that process. People who are in positions of influence SHOULD use that influence to pursue their own agenda. However when they do it demonstrates a conviction to that stated point of view.
My point was not to say that the mechanism used was one that was inherantly anti-freedom. My initial comment was to point out an anti-freedom point of view that he espouses which I backed up with an example of how commited to it he was.
That's true for all the projects that start in FSF and all the patches that they inherit.
But, they have inherited a number of projects, and presumabley some of those projects were accepting patches from the world at large. Now when the main team handed over the project, and the copyrights they have, does the FSF go and hunt down all the patch contributors to get the copyright. Or do they take it for granted that they were told that they were getting the copyright when that may not entirely be true.
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be a large disconnect in this thread between long term apple customers and other early adopters.
The reason this is a big deal to apple customers is that in terms of apple's history this much of a drop after such a time is unprecedented. In other parts of the tech sector a 33% drop in price after 2 months may not be uncommon, but just for apple it is. There is another reason this is a big deal for apple customers, in the past with their ipod line, except when the first 20gb model, when a capacity of ipod has gone down in price, it has also been revised so that there was a discernible difference between people with the last gen high-end model, and people with the current gen cheaper low-end model. With this price reduction there is no early adopter badge.
I don't hold the editors on a pedestal, and I'm not trying to defend them, but don't you think that it is just a little ironic that you've put nothing in your comment to substantiate your claim that some one else post unsubstantiated claims?
Also, in my opinion, your second paragraph strays into the realm of FUD itself. Mr. Pot I think thou protests about Mr. Kettle too much.
Doing other games should be good for them. There is a finite limit to the number of sequels you can make without having new ideas in the game. Other games with different premise will challenge them to do different things some of which might be very good to bring to a future series of metroid games. The way I see it, them taking a break keeps metroid from getting stale. I wish them well with all their future endeavors, (unless they get sold to microsoft)
By using them as the foundation for a lawsuit the MPAA violated the copyrights related to those emails. So torrentspy should countersue for the value attached to the infringement, the cost of the settlement from the lawsuit plus torrentspy's lawyer costs.
It's not 2 schools of thought, it's 3.
1) BSD: This is good code, we want people to be able to use it, maybe it will work to our advantage, and we want the copyright to stay clear so people who modify our code can't accidentally claim copyright and sue others who started with our code.
2) FSF: The end user should be able to hack their devices we'll tempt device manufacturers with good code whose license requires the manufacturer to keep the device and code open.
3) Linus?: I want the best code available for people to use, which means giving away my code, but also getting the improvements of others back.
The engadget article says that SMS works.
I think you are confusing the special way the phone shows the SMS messages stored on it, with a special network feature. If not and I am wrong, can you please give me a link to where you read about the SMS stuff? Thanks!
Which must include a host name, which will include a domain name, which must be registered with a working email address, which must include a host name, which must include a domain name, which must be registered with a working email address,
I love when the definition of a system implicitly requires a first system to exist without ever specifying that system or what to do should that first system go away.
I'm not sure I buy that argument. Your argument is based on people deciding to watch a new network as a consequence of just having it. I argue that that is not the case. Often it is advertisement on other networks that makes one want to view programs on another network. And then advertisements on that network for their other programs might lead to one watching those.
Personally I there has not really been much of a time that I didn't wish I had one or two more channels then I do. That doesn't mean that I want 40 more channels.
At least they didn't turn it into a musical (wrong Jackson for that). They would have had to extend it out to about 14 hours, and have shrieking breastplated women on horses, the hero singing to his sword, supernatural beings crooning while leaving the world...
Wait a sec... didn't someone already do that?
Factual bogus-ness too much. Must Correct.
1. Der Ring des Nibelungen predates The Lord of the Ring, and thus is not a derivative work, and so ther's nothing to extend.
2. Der Ring des Nibelungen is not a single it is a series of operas.
3. Operas are not musicals.
4. I still can't get over the proposition that Der Ring des Nibelungen is a derivative work, that I am going to point out that, not being a derivative work of The Lord of the Rings, the shrieking woman and singing to the sword were not added, they just are.
5. Musicals, and Operas for that matter were/are often loosely based on common stories, but not intended to be canonical versions of the literature they are based on. They are intended to be new art with a framework that helps the audience relate. So if you are going to judge the musical judge it on the standard of musicals, not as a translation of literature.
I don't think you know what he thinks it really means. I think he want's to use hacking as a generic term, for doing stuff as in "I hacked together a working PC form all the junk in my basement" or "I hacked that new feature into my existing code.", and so the poster and many people who like using the word hacker for themselves but don't want others to immediately associate themselves with criminal hackers, tried to coin a new term for those people, "crackers". And while that term never caught on people who want you to call criminal hackers crackers, will always make issue of calling them hackers in the hope that one day they might call themselves hackers, with out any of the negative connotations.
Interestingly enough many people who take that position try to use defend their strictly non-criminal activity use of the word by citing the famous MIT non computer hacks. The irony of this of course is that many of those involved minor criminal activity like breaking and entering.
How is considering driving to be a privilege instead of a right, making it a police state? If I chose to have friends that live miles from me, and I chose not to live somewhere with convenient mass transit then there is no reason why I have to be allowed to drive. If driving where a right there would not be drivers licenses, and cars would not need to be inspected.
Society has not mandated cars. There are many people without cars that do quite nicely, especially in major metropolitan areas. There are some people who live lives that are highly dependent on cars, but the majority of those people made the choices to end up that way.
Finally if driving were a right, it would not be denied to so many handicapped people. I don't think a single blind person has had a driver's license. Rights are things that can not be denied. Driving is something that can and will be.
As for the scanning and storing, It's really not that bad. The police to citizen ratio has gone way down so now must of us don't know are police, but it wasn't always that way, and in those days the police could largely do the same thing, except with their human knowledge of you and their memory. Since that time we have given them less, and they are finally just learning how to do more with it.
Unfortunately as far as RMS is concerned the GPL is about getting rid of black boxes. It goes back to the printer story. When Stallman buys something he wants to be able to hack it. For him free software is a bit of a trojan horse. The horse is the good software that is more economical to use then starting from scratch, the trojan soldiers are that by bringing this code into your proverbial gates, because of the licensing you have also give the end user the right to hack the device. That's why tivoisation is "bad" according to him. He doesn't care about getting the changes from tivo. He's a master programmer, why would he need their code except to hack it. And if you look at a lot of the sagas concerning emacs development and forks because of his project management style you will see this to be true.
For some people free software is about sharing each others brilliance, for RMS it's about being personally Soo brilliant that others will give you more "freedoms" in order to take advantage of that brilliance.
But if we don't know any plausible consequences of the technology, the energy is free, clean, and green right?
There is no free energy. If we take energy from the machinery that keeps the planet habitable, we will cause changes. While change isn't necessarily bad it's also not necessarily reversible, so maybe we want to tread a bit more lightly, until we really can plot the changes we are setting into motion. Energy efficiency is more important then energy sources.
How many times does this perception have to be fixed. You can change the physical sim. The thing that is restricted is using another carrier, which is common on US phones. In the end of the day the reason for this is our messed up publicly traded stock system. Rather then just being used for long term investment, there are now many people who try to skim money off our economy by taking advantage of short term fluctuations of relative stock value. This has resulted in a more volatile market, where companies are valued, not on their real value, but on their rate of growth and sometimes even the rate of their rate of growth. This can result in a successful company ending up vastly undervalued, and often when this happens they get bought out to the detriment of the company. And in this world being able to make long term profit estimates is very important, and as a consequence of greed and the corporate corruption that stemmed from that greed, we have fairly strict laws about what profit you can say that you expect. And cell phone contracts come out of that, ATT gets to declare more expected earnings from me if they have a 2 year contract with them, then if I am just month to month. Of course this has meant that once the market adjusted to the 1 year contracts they had to go to 18 month and now 2 year. I would be surprised if we made it to the end of the decade without the standard contract being 2.5 years.
I may be bucking the general consensus, but a lot of people would not consider this a good thing.
First, there are the religious types, who dissapprove because "that's how God made them."
Then there are the parents (religious or not) who say "my child is special and I wouldn't want them any other way." You'd be surprised how often this sentiment gets expressed.
Not everyone believes that (and I don't mean it in a negative sense) is a laudible goal for science. This might make me seem like a nut job, but while I don't go in for the whole eugenics thing that the parent linked to, I do think that people should consider the consequences to humanity if people who due to genetic conditions would not be able to pass on their genetic condition are. Aside from the fact that that means the number of members of the next generation that need to be treated for this condition will be higher, it also means that as time goes by a higher percentage of the population will have the condition and that is a higher percentage of society that will rely on sophisticated medical intervention to be a fully productive (In this case fully productive includes replacing yourself) member of society. Which would be problematic if humanity or any isolated portion of it (say, a colony on another in another solar system that has to survive for generations before any remotely originating assistance can be rendered) is deprived of our current level of technology for a generation or two. Of course the solution to this should be restrictions on procreation of treated people rather then a restriction on treatment, in a world where procreation is an inalienable right. But if we're sure that no asteroid will hit, and no nuclear wars will happen, and we'll only leave the solar system after we've figured out how to get to where we are going in less then a decade then consequences be damned.
I agree with you in principal the children with special needs should not be allowed to suffer because of it when preventable. However given that in our society in most regards parents have precedence over society with regard to most child rearing decisions, and given that the rules of our society are set up to allow for many different systems of belief to coexist, the change you have proposed to our societal rules is impossible. If you want to make that change you must first either limit the scope of acceptable diverse beliefs, or increase the amount of control the society is allowed to exert with regard to how children are raised.
Additionally I would like to voice my agreement for the autistic individual's sentiment that different is not necessarily worse.
first post.
9 48241
Also looks like a dupe of this story http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/18/1
In terms of suffering, it's IBM who has suffered. Most computer manufacturers have educational pricing that is deeply discounted, so IBM wasn't making a lot of money off those machines to begin with. And if IBM had had that money in had they probably would have done something with it more then letting it be devalued by inflation without hindrance. So IBM gave up money on the machines, gave up money in the form of postponing the debt, and losing because of a lack of interest to make up for inflation.
The facts for the children are that their school system is better then it would be if it had paid that money before now. The expenditure was one with a limited life span anyhow, which has passed, so it's not like they are hurting a lot from not having the equipment. They haven't had their school system go further into the red to pay to keep that equipment on a maintenance contract after the point where that is a loss. So the school system is healthy for them today. And what's even better is that the timing of the re-payment was worked out so as to have minimal impact.
Also from a completely cynical point of view, I would like to point out that it is CA state legislators involved, as opposed to locals. What intrest does that state legislation have in the interest of a regional board of ed. Well I would not be surprised if they were looking to tighten their own budget, and gee it would be nice if they could short that school district 1.25m but know that they would be ok, so that 1.25m more of pork could survive. yeah IBM should suffer so that pork might live.
Wasn't there an article recently about how they have discovered that it was bringing someone back from a hear failure that was the most damaging part? I imagine that they'd need to solve that first.
I'm not a gun person, but if the founding fathers had only had the guns the government deemed that they needed then we wouldn't have one our independence. In this country people have a right to bear arms, and it's not to hunt, it's to form militias if so desired. If we want to change this sort of thing, step 1, is to change or remove the 2nd amendment. Which makes sense because militias are no longer used in law enforcement and there has become such a huge disparity between the stuff the military has and the stuff the populace has that we could never succeed in a revolt against an illegal tyrannical government anyway.
as well as strength of character necessary for a responsible owner.
Wow. You really want to go there? Because I'm pretty sure that having not accepted the flying spaghetti monster as your own personal savior, you don't have the strength of character needed to responsibly do anything important, like vote, or speak freely.
Farmers can kill, repel or immobilize wild animals by weapons that are not likely to kill humans.
a lot of the dangerous wildlife out there is dangerous because it is big enough to be, which often means harder to kill then a human.
The GPLv3 is looking for more. Tivo Distributes back the code they use. v3 is looking to make it so that Hardware distributed with and running GPL'ed code not prevent derivitive versions from working.
In theory there already is a work around. A device manufacturer can make hardware with checksum checking, and then have the end user get a version of the code that matches the checksum. If the code that matches the checksum isn't tied to the hardware and is freely avaiable to all. Of course the ironic thing about that, is that the consumer would then be unable to sell the device without clearing the code, which depending on the devices setup might mean bricking the device. So in this way the GPL might prevent resale, which I don't think is the intent.
I didn't say it was a right.
We live in a world where not everyone considers all the evidence to come to their own conclusions. Where not everyone speaks with an equal voice, or has their ideas considered equally. In this setting often the only way to increase your standing is to associate with or topple someone with a loud voice. So in this system association with RMS is a commodity. And he exerts that power that that commidty grants him to pursue his own agenda, and there is nothing that is wrong with that process. People who are in positions of influence SHOULD use that influence to pursue their own agenda. However when they do it demonstrates a conviction to that stated point of view.
My point was not to say that the mechanism used was one that was inherantly anti-freedom. My initial comment was to point out an anti-freedom point of view that he espouses which I backed up with an example of how commited to it he was.
why can't games with GBA releases get released for the VC? And doesn't Super Mario World contradict that?
That's true for all the projects that start in FSF and all the patches that they inherit. But, they have inherited a number of projects, and presumabley some of those projects were accepting patches from the world at large. Now when the main team handed over the project, and the copyrights they have, does the FSF go and hunt down all the patch contributors to get the copyright. Or do they take it for granted that they were told that they were getting the copyright when that may not entirely be true.