For example, the "In God We Trust" printed on our money. It's just a slogan, dude, why is it so important?
Well it's profane against Christianty for one. I'm surprised few Christians object to it.
Atheism should be just as valid a religion (which I consider it to be) as any other in the government's eyes, but of course, "In God We Trust" was a direct attack upon atheists. There was no other intention for it when it was put in -- it was to affirm the United States as a fundamentally Christian nation, and not a godless nation like the USSR.
GPL3 is meant to stop companies like Tivo. Far from being freeloaders, they've made numerous modifications and improvements to the Linux kernel which, under the GPL, they've released back to the community. What they do that the GPL3 seeks to limit, is the hardware will only run kernel binaries that are signed by Tivo. They have the legal (and, I would argue, moral) right to keep modified clients off of their network. Of course, it does leave the door open to nastier behavior, and the GPL3 simply removes that choice.
Those people will not use GPL3 software. Well, good riddance. Knowing that even Solaris may be GPL3 should give anybody confidence that the people being unloaded from the FOSS movement are the freeloaders, not the people genuinely contributing with great projects.
Right. The people contributing to all the GPL2 projects that aren't planning to switch to GPL3 are freeloaders.
No, you are wrong. Think about it. If software was sold instead of licensed then the copyrights should transfer also
That doesn't follow, and it's not how it works for physical objects either. Purchase of an object is not purchase of the copyright (or patent for that matter), those are always separate (though they can be sold together through agreement). I can buy a modern painting, never sign any contract, but not distribute reproductions of it or derivate works. I can buy a CD, do anything and everything I want to it... except distribute copies of it (or derivative works). This has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of "license," and courts have ruled many times that those purchases are sales of objects and not licenses given out by the publishers. Again, software is different because during the installation process you are presented with an agreement, and it is when you actually agree to that license that the nature of the property changes. But up until that point, it was your actual property -- even though at no time were you the owner of the copyright.
For more than a decade now, software is NOT sold, it is LICENSED. You want to buy Windows? Please, shell out a few billion and *maybe* you may get XP or 2k. Only work for hire software is SOLD.
Incorrect, it is SOLD. It is a sale. Post-sale, upon user agreement, it becomes a license. But at the initial sale you are the owner of the manuals, CDs, and everything on the CDs. You just can't really do anything with them. Only through that agreement will you be able to access the actual program.
They sell software like they sell CDs, so I would expect the doctrine of first sale to apply.
That's a reasonable expectation. It just happens to be wrong.
It isn't wrong at the start, but it is invalidated once you hit "I agree." Until then though, software is yours to do as you want. Of course, it's not good for much until you go through the license agreement. A clever person, however, could legally make good use of the files on the CD without ever going through any license agreement.
No, what he was doing was refuting your assertion that you can "try to extend your theories to the meatspace world." The previous poster did just that, but it didn't work because these are different types of situations. I often don't like it when people, say, "try to use a car analogy" or "imagine the same situation in a store.." Your examples that you used about security guards or tags on clothing don't fit the current situation because those are all pre-sale restrictions. Once the sale is made, all restrictions are released. In the software world, however, modern copy protection systems hassle the user well after the product has been sold, whether it be some 3rd-party protection program, license keys/servers, or online activation. The only offline comparison you can make are to objects which are easily duplicated.
I can understand if you're not satisfied with the current system, and I think it leaves much to be desired. However, when advocating replacing the system you need to come up with something better. You're suggesting that it's fine if, say, the movie and music industries crashed and burned because they would have a hard time (if it would even be possible) to create these works in a copyright-less society, and I think that the vast majority of society, including me, disagrees with you on that point.
And that's exactly how the Anti-Defamation League likes it.
I am hoping that rational, informed people however can have discussions on these things without stooping to that level. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't!
They really really could benefit by applying a FEW of the Republic Party's techniques such as sticking to your message, not changing your mind based on press, actually making a commitment to do something, etc
Unfortunately this is one of the things I DISLIKE about the Republican Party because they take that belief to such a ridiculous level. "Sticking to your message" and "not changing your mind based on press" becomes "don't admit that you made a mistake," "stay with your policies even if they don't work," and "your side is never wrong."
Are the Democrats wishy-washy? Hell yeah. However, I'd rather not see them adopt the same tactics that the Republicans use.
Taking out the Rainbow Warrior was quite easy, and all it cost France was their reputation, which as we've seen they didn't care about in the first place.
( Oh yeah, almost forgot about the NZ$21 million France ended up paying. Then again, the operation was never supposed to kill anyone either. )
The French government also lost moral credibility to Americans by continuing to arm Iraq after their use chemical weapons on civilians. The previous French government seemed to be "in bed" with Saddam. France's willingness to use lethal military force against Greenpeace - killing one member, but not Saddam, is the sort of hypocrisy many American's expect.
This isn't hypocrisy, merely a willingness to weigh the costs against the benefits of an action. Taking out the Rainbow Warrior was quite easy, and all it cost France was their reputation, which as we've seen they didn't care about in the first place.
Iraq, however, is a quagmire that France knew it couldn't afford. Taking out Saddam didn't go very far in serving France's best interests. He wasn't a threat to them, and while the actual killing of Saddam wasn't too tough, the aftermath has been brutal.
While traveling in Paris, and only being able to speak a few words of French - poorly, I've always been treated very well.
Such has been the experience of my mother as well traveling in Paris and in Provence. I'm not one to believe the stories of French people hating Americans, etcetc. As long as you make even a small attempt to not be the "ugly American," people are rather friendly, and even accommodating.
You can have a strong dislike for Israel without being a "jew-hater." Do NOT confuse anti-semitism with dislike for a country's policies or divisiveness.
There really was a live-action Hollywood adaptation of Star Blazers in pre-production for awhile before Disney canceled the project when Eisner left. The new Star Blazers involved raising the USS Arizona from the depths of Pearl Harbor, rebuilding it, and having a crew of misfits (who had nothing to do with the crew from the original series, not even the names matched) fly off to save earth from an extra-terrestrial menace.
I think that's the likeliest explanation. On my server questing in Hellfire was a PITA just because the players were pretty packed in there and it was hard to find the monsters to kill... but the game was totally playable otherwise.
Today, the religious context is not needed. Today, people have the intelligence to be moral without the threat of eternal pain and damnation.
My, that's a pretty big leap there. I'm not sure I'd agree with that assertion. I would say "some people have the intelligence to be moral without the threat of eternal pain and damnation." I wouldn't say "all people" though. In fact, I wouldn't even agree with "most people."
I would say we're genetically wired to put our own self-interests and especially the interests of our families ahead of society as a whole, even for actions that would be quite damaging to society. Those are hard impulses to overcome.
Slashdot Mirror
Did Ozzie write his own music? Some of the solo work he did I thought was quite good. Some..
Well it's profane against Christianty for one. I'm surprised few Christians object to it.
Atheism should be just as valid a religion (which I consider it to be) as any other in the government's eyes, but of course, "In God We Trust" was a direct attack upon atheists. There was no other intention for it when it was put in -- it was to affirm the United States as a fundamentally Christian nation, and not a godless nation like the USSR.
Right, personal choice isn't involved. It's genes that drive someone to rape.
Apple's trying to freeze out not only Linux, but any other player which tries to write to the iPod.
I have a theory that Stallman tries to look like the GNU mascot as much as possible, but don't have any hard proof for it yet.
Those people will not use GPL3 software. Well, good riddance. Knowing that even Solaris may be GPL3 should give anybody confidence that the people being unloaded from the FOSS movement are the freeloaders, not the people genuinely contributing with great projects.
Right. The people contributing to all the GPL2 projects that aren't planning to switch to GPL3 are freeloaders.
Perhaps if all the info-file readers out there weren't so low-quality they might be more popular.
That doesn't follow, and it's not how it works for physical objects either. Purchase of an object is not purchase of the copyright (or patent for that matter), those are always separate (though they can be sold together through agreement). I can buy a modern painting, never sign any contract, but not distribute reproductions of it or derivate works. I can buy a CD, do anything and everything I want to it... except distribute copies of it (or derivative works). This has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of "license," and courts have ruled many times that those purchases are sales of objects and not licenses given out by the publishers. Again, software is different because during the installation process you are presented with an agreement, and it is when you actually agree to that license that the nature of the property changes. But up until that point, it was your actual property -- even though at no time were you the owner of the copyright.
Incorrect, it is SOLD. It is a sale. Post-sale, upon user agreement, it becomes a license. But at the initial sale you are the owner of the manuals, CDs, and everything on the CDs. You just can't really do anything with them. Only through that agreement will you be able to access the actual program.
That's a reasonable expectation. It just happens to be wrong.
It isn't wrong at the start, but it is invalidated once you hit "I agree." Until then though, software is yours to do as you want. Of course, it's not good for much until you go through the license agreement. A clever person, however, could legally make good use of the files on the CD without ever going through any license agreement.
Not sure myself. I think a greater proportion of Linus worshipping sheeple got mod points today.
Probably because the poster took pains to post it in a very insulting manner. I don't have a problem with question itself.
Bad thought, bad thought!!
No, what he was doing was refuting your assertion that you can "try to extend your theories to the meatspace world." The previous poster did just that, but it didn't work because these are different types of situations. I often don't like it when people, say, "try to use a car analogy" or "imagine the same situation in a store.." Your examples that you used about security guards or tags on clothing don't fit the current situation because those are all pre-sale restrictions. Once the sale is made, all restrictions are released. In the software world, however, modern copy protection systems hassle the user well after the product has been sold, whether it be some 3rd-party protection program, license keys/servers, or online activation. The only offline comparison you can make are to objects which are easily duplicated.
I can understand if you're not satisfied with the current system, and I think it leaves much to be desired. However, when advocating replacing the system you need to come up with something better. You're suggesting that it's fine if, say, the movie and music industries crashed and burned because they would have a hard time (if it would even be possible) to create these works in a copyright-less society, and I think that the vast majority of society, including me, disagrees with you on that point.
By anyone's definition (except that actual court case, ironically), he had sex with the intern. Not F'ed, maybe, but sex nonetheless.
A cop is neither a man nor a woman? What the hell are they? O_o
I am hoping that rational, informed people however can have discussions on these things without stooping to that level. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't!
Unfortunately this is one of the things I DISLIKE about the Republican Party because they take that belief to such a ridiculous level. "Sticking to your message" and "not changing your mind based on press" becomes "don't admit that you made a mistake," "stay with your policies even if they don't work," and "your side is never wrong."
Are the Democrats wishy-washy? Hell yeah. However, I'd rather not see them adopt the same tactics that the Republicans use.
( Oh yeah, almost forgot about the NZ$21 million France ended up paying. Then again, the operation was never supposed to kill anyone either. )
This isn't hypocrisy, merely a willingness to weigh the costs against the benefits of an action. Taking out the Rainbow Warrior was quite easy, and all it cost France was their reputation, which as we've seen they didn't care about in the first place.
Iraq, however, is a quagmire that France knew it couldn't afford. Taking out Saddam didn't go very far in serving France's best interests. He wasn't a threat to them, and while the actual killing of Saddam wasn't too tough, the aftermath has been brutal.
While traveling in Paris, and only being able to speak a few words of French - poorly, I've always been treated very well.
Such has been the experience of my mother as well traveling in Paris and in Provence. I'm not one to believe the stories of French people hating Americans, etcetc. As long as you make even a small attempt to not be the "ugly American," people are rather friendly, and even accommodating.
You can have a strong dislike for Israel without being a "jew-hater." Do NOT confuse anti-semitism with dislike for a country's policies or divisiveness.
Be careful what you wish for.
There really was a live-action Hollywood adaptation of Star Blazers in pre-production for awhile before Disney canceled the project when Eisner left. The new Star Blazers involved raising the USS Arizona from the depths of Pearl Harbor, rebuilding it, and having a crew of misfits (who had nothing to do with the crew from the original series, not even the names matched) fly off to save earth from an extra-terrestrial menace.
So... yeah.
I think that's the likeliest explanation. On my server questing in Hellfire was a PITA just because the players were pretty packed in there and it was hard to find the monsters to kill... but the game was totally playable otherwise.
My, that's a pretty big leap there. I'm not sure I'd agree with that assertion. I would say "some people have the intelligence to be moral without the threat of eternal pain and damnation." I wouldn't say "all people" though. In fact, I wouldn't even agree with "most people."
I would say we're genetically wired to put our own self-interests and especially the interests of our families ahead of society as a whole, even for actions that would be quite damaging to society. Those are hard impulses to overcome.
Hell, due to historical record, most atheists believe that Jesus the man existed. They just don't believe the claim that he was the son of God.