Enforcing freedom is an oxymoron. How do you mean? Courts, police, governments, the US Constitution, do you include these in your assessment? What about a gun used solely in self-defense? Is that not an example of that exact same "oxymoron"?
It's one of the universe's many ironies that freedom must be enforced. The reason for this is that if you don't enforce freedom, someone else will assuredly impose their will upon others in contradiction of these others' freedoms. This is a direct result of combining "free will" with the physical capability of adversely hindering the freedom of others.
IBM offers a whole category of their IP freely and perpetually, and you ungrateful morons demand more and question IBM's commitment to open source.
Now Apple hires the CUPS developer and buys his code. They're keeping it under the GPL, yet this is part of some grand scheme to close source the technologies they use?
Do you really want to know what Apple did here? They rely heavily on CUPS, so they want to hire the guy who writes it because:
A. Paying him will help motivate him to make CUPS much better much more quickly. B. Instead of contributing code themselves, it's more efficient to have the main developer do it directly. C. They now have the world's best CUPS programmer.
They bought rights to the code because that's standard. They're still releasing it under the GPL. They *could* have just closed it, leaving the rest of us to fork the existing GPL'd project.
As for fear of the GPLv3, what, exactly, do you think Apple has to fear from it? Do you think Apple is planning to DRM CUPS? Or patent it all to hell (yet still release it under the GPLv2)? Would a GPLv3 CUPS require Apple to license the whole of OS X under the GPL? Seriously, what do you have in mind?
Apple hired one of the head BSD developers. They hired a well-known Mozilla contributer to work on their own derivative of an Open Sourced web browser back-end, which is now used by Apple's competitors, and yet Apple is showing no interest in closing the project. This is just the same sort of thing. Apple has voluntarily open sourced their own products. They participate in *many* open standards organizations, and they overwhelmingly rely on open and free standards for virtually every aspect of OS X. iCal, WebDAV, IMAP/POP3, CUPS, SQLite, CalDAV, XML, ugh, I could go on. All these technologies, and more, are open and freely usable. They also use some that are open but require a license (H.264). They're not all open source, but it's not like they're actually averse to it, now, are they?
Put the tinfoil hat down. This is not a conspiracy. Apple is not going to close CUPS. They're not afraid of Stallman. This has all come about because CUPS provides a critical function to OS X, and this is the best way to ensure CUPS advances at the pace they want, and evolves in the direction they want.
If Apple is so afraid of GPLv3, what are they going to do about SAMBA?
And how, exactly, do you suppose that alters what I wrote? Ignoring the fact that I specifically added verbiage to state that if you want to disagree on this exact point, it doesn't change the argument (which is a fairly generous offer on my part), are the present war in Iraq and Clinton's bombings in 1998 so exceptionally similar that the differences between the two are of little note?
Even GHWB's war with Iraq, which is exceedingly more similar to the present war, is still quite sufficiently different from the present war to make moral comparisons between the two tricky.
Look, I hate Bush too, but you're pretty horribly wrong here.
We did not go to war with any nation under President Clinton. We did attack a few nations, and we did participate in NATO actions. But, even if you equate that with war, you can't possibly fail see the difference between the "wars" we fought under Clinton and the Iraq war. We did go to war. In 1998. With Iraq. Even if I am wrong on that specific point, the general point is not effected.
First, you must prove Bush is lying, and not incompetent. Why? Why must you not prove he's incompetent and not lying? Occam's Razor needn't even be sharpened to lay waste to the notion that he's merely incompetent. If he's lying, it's, while atrocious, at least the sort of thing one could imagine a president to do (Democrat, Republican, Whig, or other). If he's incompetent (and *not* lying--I hold he's both, it's not exactly and either-or, now is it?), he would have to be so monumentally incompetent as to take the grand prize in the Universal Competition of All-Time in the category of Severe and Absolute Incompetence.
Not really. Yes, I agree that Bush's level of conformity is bad. But Clinton was just as bad in many respects. Again, this is the exact thing I'm arguing against. Yes, certainly some of the things Bush has done, so has Clinton. But "in many respects" is a nonsensical statement without context, yet it's used as though it's a fully iron-clad analogy.
Clinton deserves criticism, and so does Bush. Does that make them equal? Does not the quality, the nature, or the scope of the criticism matter? To the simpleton, it clearly doesn't.
Are you honestly foolish enough to hold that both Bush's and Clinton's actions have negatively altered the world in equal measure?
I wish people would realize that voting for the lesser of two evils isn't helping the problem. Wait, lesser of two evils? I thought your whole premise is that they are the equal of two evils.
Tell you what, I'll take a realistic shot at the lesser of two evils over the astronomically improbable shot at the perfect candidate (as though, somehow, your third-party guy is a saint) any day, the same way I'll do something undesirable (say, saw off my own leg) to stave off something worse (like remain trapped under a log, destined to die of dehydration--or worse). I prefer reality to fantasy. But if you wish to believe in faeries and third party presidential candidates, as you wish, just try not to infect the rest of us with your lunacy, if you wouldn't mind.
It's interesting that you seem so eager to equate Bush and Clinton, even though by any rational measure, they are not equal except in the most superficial of ways. It's clear that you must hold this position in order to justify your hopes for that Knight in Shining Armor to come rescue you from the undesirable aspects of reality, that knight known as "Third Party Candidate".
The biggest single mistake the Founding Fathers made was their system led to a two party system. That's the state it finds equilibrium at. You can throw a third party into the mix, and sometimes it shuffles things around, but it invariably settles back to two parties. The second biggest mistake, if you're curious (not that I hold the illusion that you are), is the second amendment was so poorly worded that two it can reasonably support two completely contradictory interpretations.
Your single biggest mistake (at least, on the topic at hand) is to step so far back, to hold yourself so far away, from the politicians in question that the differences seem miniscule, but when you look at them up close (or even from a normal perspective) those differences become exceedingly apparent.
You want to criticize Clinton, I'm right there with you. You want to equate him to Bush, you stand alone.
1. No it's not. It's a congressional transcript. Instead of sending me to search through it, quote the part that says, "the US declares war against Iraq", or the sufficient equivalent.
2. Even if it does say, unequivocally, that the US declares war with Iraq, the difference between then and 2003 is more than clear, and I make that point in my original post.
Am I the only one who remembers that we were technically at war from 1991-2003 (Resolution 687 was not an armistice, it was a cease fire!) Technically we're still at war with N. Korea. It would be idiotic to use that as a sound comparison with the present Iraq war pertinent to the topic at hand.
Of course, let's not let facts get in the way of Bush Bashing. I don't follow. Your facts are true. Clinton, Reagan, and others have suppressed their Surgeon Generals. Clinton, Reagan, and others deserve criticism for it, and not only that, they GOT criticism for it AT THE TIME.
Now along comes Bush, he does what they did, but does it to a greater extreme, and you argue we should just leave him alone? I just don't follow your logic...
Actually, I do, it's: "Clinton did it" absolves all sins.
I always thought you Republicans hated Clinton, but it's becoming clear you think he's up there with Christ. Apologies for having you figured all backwards in the past.
Actually, doing a job to too high standards can kill people That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about malpractice insurance. If the standards are set to high, that's the problem with the standards, not the insurance itself.
I believe the rights of the accused trump any right of the alleged victim We're not talking about the accused. We're talking about the guilty. If you're found *guilty* of malpractice, you must pay, and there should be no artificial cap--you pay what you deserve to pay. Until you're found guilty, you most certainly deserve rights to protect you from malicious or unmerited persecution. It seems to me you are focusing on the wrong part. There's (seemingly) a flaw in the first half (the part *before* you're found guilty), yet you think that, due to this, you should apply the fix to the second part (the part *after* you're found guilty).
I am all for capping prison sentences for everything but murder and rape... saying that you can only be punished so far sounds like a very fair and sensible thing to do for all but the most extreme crimes. So do I. Unfortunately for you, that's not what I argued against. I argued against limiting damages (punishment) before even taking into account the nature and severity of the wrongdoing.
If people want protection, let them go to a doctor who is bonded. They can do this now. This is also the case with auto insurance. You can be bonded, or you can buy insurance. But mandatory insurance (or bond) makes us all safer.
Yeah... cause you know, places that aren't lawsuit crazy, like France, or Germany, or Canada, are just sooooo much more dangerous than the United States. Please! No, I said, "If it weren't for trial lawyers, the US would be a much more dangerous place to live." Are you saying France, Germany and Canada all do not have trial lawyers? Interesting. How do they settle civil disputes?
*ALL* cases go to trial. No they don't.
[about whether you'd pay for a trial lawyer's services] You are missing the point. No, that's *exactly* the point. You decry them as an evil, yet you'd not hesitate for one moment to avail yourself of their services.
If trial lawyers are so despicable, you should vow to never, EVER, use them. EVER. But you know you would. That either makes *YOU* evil, or them not. Which is it?
Additionally, if trial lawyers are so awful, doesn't that make trials awful, by association? I mean, the whole point of a trial lawyer is to argue a trial. This seems a fairly fundamental requirement for a free and civil society.
The vast majority of medical lawsuits involves cases where someone never suffered any significant loss of health, and the doctor wasn't responsible. First off, did you just make that up? Second, even if it's true, do these cases result in the plaintiff winning? Third, isn't that fraud? And again, this does not indict insurance, it indicts flaws in the rules.
Instead of fixing the legal system, you'd rather just do away with that portion of it altogether? What's this got to do with whether insurance itself is good or bad? Or trials are good or bad?
Funny how everyone wants to impeach Bush for doing things that Clinton got away with: Going to war with a country that was not a threat....CHECK! Lying to the country....CHECK! Claiming Iraq had WMDs....CHECK! Censoring the SG....CHECK! Firing attorneys....CHECK!... Funny how conservatives are so quick to ignore qualitative differences so long as they can find some intersection in the actions of others.
Going to war with a country that was not a threat....CHECK! We did not go to war with any nation under President Clinton. We did attack a few nations, and we did participate in NATO actions. But, even if you equate that with war, you can't possibly fail see the difference between the "wars" we fought under Clinton and the Iraq war.
Lying to the country....CHECK! About? What were the consequences of that lie? Lying is bad, to be sure, but the consequences and nature of the lie are important as well, and the difference here is severe.
Claiming Iraq had WMDs....CHECK! Yes, and Iraq actually *had* them then. That's why Clinton bombed those weapons. I don't see anyone claiming it was a lie back then, but it's extremely obvious it was a lie in 2003.
Censoring the SG....CHECK! Certainly, that's bad, but again, the scope and excess of censorship under Bush is like a supernova compared to the matchstick censorship of Clinton.
Firing attorneys....CHECK! Hrm... It's customary and accepted for the President to shuffle his cabinet and various offices around when he takes office, and also during re-election. What Bush did was unprecedented. Worse, he didn't do it for general political purposes (which is to be expected), he did it for for extremely political and highly partisan reasons, and he lied about the records of the people he fired. The firings were because the prosecutors wouldn't charge Democrats, and instead were going after Republicans. It doesn't matter that the prosecutors investigated Dems and found no grounds for prosecution, yet found Republicans who were extremely corrupt. In other words, these people were FIRED FOR DOING THEIR JOB.
It's astonishing that people who claim to be so preoccupied with morality would be so quick to abandon any semblance of morality for political ends.
You're like whiney little kids. You saw one kid shoplift a candy bar and instead of going to jail, he was sent home to his parents. So you decided you could rob a bank at gunpoint, and cry "foul" that, once caught, you're not simply being sent home as well.
Mr. Sage might be a law professor and physician, but he is obviosly not an economist. You have to be pretty foolish to believe that making doctors pay millions in insurance premiums, and driving thousands out of the medical field for fear of lawsuits, wouldn't make health care more expensive. Yeah, when you require such an important job be done right, *of course* it's going to cost more. At least, up front. In the long term, however, it's much, much better.
Capping medical malpractice awards is another way of saying, "limiting the rights of the victim". Aren't you conservatives supposed to be all in favor of victim's rights? If your doctor screws up, don't you think you have rights to compensation under the law? Capping compensation is like capping prison sentences. It's like saying, no matter how bad your actions are, you can only be punished so far. For a group that so strongly supports the death penalty, being against having to pay for the damage you've caused seems absurd to the extreme.
How would you feel if everything was capped like this? If your building contractor was similarly capped? Did his malpractice cost you $100 million? Tough, you can only get $200k from him, regardless of whether he was entirely at fault, and found negligent at his profession. That would be insane. How much worse when it's something to do with your health!
The Trial Lawyers of America There is absolutely *NOTHING* wrong with being a trial lawyer. To be against them is to basically be against the JUDICIAL system. How insane is that?
You used the derogatory term "Ambulance Chasers" to refer to trial lawyers. If they have a case, if there was fault worthy of a trial, what is *wrong* with seeking to make the guilty party pay? If it weren't for trial lawyers, the US would be a much more dangerous place to live.
I have absolutely no doubt that if someone's actions caused you significant loss of health, *YOU'D* hire the best trial lawyer your money could buy.
If there's one thing the FSF has done successfully, it's teach FLOSS developers to be highly skeptical of any large, monolithic entity with power over your programs and your code. That's not what they've taught at all. They've taught that large monolithic organizations are just fine and dandy, so long as they provide you with the ability to do what you want with the products they sell you.
The FSF is, due to it's GNU associations [aside: what does this even mean?], very much a large, monolithic entity in the *nix world. If I was going to say "I trust you with my code in perpetuity" I'd probably go with any other FLOSS license besides the GPL. Which organization do you think is going to work to protect the freedom of software users more than the FSF?
Note that there's no reason the original copyright holder can't re-release code that's GPLv2-only under GPLv3 or later revisions. The original owner didn't gain access to it by the GPL. He gained access to it by copyright. See my response to the AC below.
The real question is, what, exactly, do people think is going to happen? MS is going to buy the FSF and create a GPLv4 which is just an MS license? Do they think that somehow this means that the FSF will be able to steal your code away from you? None of these things are remotely likely, or in the case of the second, even reasonably possible.
The biggest concern is the FSF really screwing up, inadvertently, a new license. *That's* the only reasonable concern. The FSF has shown great care in the past, and present, in drafting their licenses, and it seems highly reasonable to assume they'll do so in the future. Of course, if it were as easy as you (and others) seem to think to relicense a project from GPLv2 to GPLv3 (or any other earlier-later transition), then there really wouldn't be an issue. But it *is* difficult, unless you are the sole programmer for a project, and you don't die or pass on stewardship of the project to someone else without granting them full copyright of your code. And if you do accept patches or other collaboration, then you'll have to be sure to consolidate fully copyrights from everyone who contributes code (which is the exact thing you are arguing *against* people doing).
On the other hand, just adding "or later" (not adding, actually, just not removing), you avoid all those problems. All those real problems which actually exist. You do leave yourself vulnerable to potential problems, primarily the FSF botching a subsequent license. But if your code is GPLvX or later, if GPLvX+1 is botched, you can still just use GPLvX. Of course, you can't stop others from switching over to a newer license, but your code will remain under the "GPLvX or later" license, if that's what you wish. And even if GPLvX+1 (or later) is botched, it's probably not botched all that much.
So the risk is small, the potential problems are small and fairly limited, and the potential for avoiding non-small, non-low risk problems is great. How is this foolish again?
it's foolish to allow the possibility when you can eliminate it by deleting two words from the licence Why is that? If the possibility is miniscule, why worry about it so?
The flipside is that the GPLv3 probably suits most GPLv2 users better than GPLv2 does Exactly.
but you can simply re-licence your code manually if you want to change it. No, you can't. Or, more accurately, it becomes exceedingly more difficult, as more and more people contribute to your project. Linus would, for example, have to hunt down every single person who contributed code to the Linux kernel, and ask them for permission (or hunt down the person who now has legal ownership of their code, as some contributors are now deceased). For those who say "no", or who are not reachable, Linus will have to replace their code.
All for the want of two words. Two words excised for fear of something that is *far less* likely to happen than the above scenario, which is actually quite common.
I'm not sure what you mean by "significantly," given that I think the odds of either party doing it are so vanishingly close to zero that it's hardly worth pretending that it's on the table. Because it almost happened during a Democratic administration, and the process was all but completely *abandoned* during the subsequent Republican administration. And "the process" doesn't refer to a break-up of the company, but of the entire anti-trust process itself.
Republicans just don't believe in anti-trust regulations. Or regulations in general, excepting those which have to do with decency. Democrats do. *That's* the difference.
If anything, Democrats depend far more on the high-tech sector of the economy than Republicans do for support, particularly corporate support. In recent years, Microsoft (and its employees) has been a major Democratic donor (#30 overall -- even bigger than the NRA and just beneath the AFL-CIO); in both '04 and '06 they gave the majority of their donations to Democrats.* Wait, bigger than the NRA? To the Democrats? Wow! Then they're definitely going to do as MS commands, if that's your criterion. But less than the AFL-CIO? Hrm... Labor vs corporate monopoly. And somehow this means Democrats won't go after Microsoft, up to and including breaking them up? What a strange, and non-logical conclusion to reach. To be sure, the problem with MS isn't primarily a labor one, but it is the same sort of problem--a corporate bully in the market place. Republicans love them, Democrats hate them. You can't skirt around that.
The political philosophy of either of the major parties is basically irrelevant; their actions are virtually always predictable by looking solely at their sources of funding and votes. That's just patently false. It *does* hold true for some people, but it's not as universal as you make it out to be.
No, I just don't buy your argument. It's too full of pseudo-cynical nonsense and hand-waving number conjuring which don't even support your conclusion. There are still states that wish to go after MS, and there are ABSOLUTELY Democrats who will do just that, given the chance (although this may take the back burner to more pressing matters like Iraq and the million-and-a-half other ways the Bush administration has fouled things up). Far more than there are Republicans. To think otherwise is absurd, to say the least.
At this point, however, I *do* agree with you that breaking up MS isn't as likely as it was 6 years ago. This is mostly because MS isn't as severe a threat as they were back then, which is due is large part, IMO, with the sudden significance of Apple during that time. If Apple had taken Michael Dell's advice from that period, MS would be just as bad now as ever. I still think it would benefit the nation (and world) one the whole were MS to split up into various divisions, but I no longer think the pressure to do so exists.
Right, because lefties aren't influenced by money? Microsoft has billions of dollars in cash, more than enough to buy whatever politicians happen to be in power. Republicans tend to be more big business friendly. Democrats tend to be more consumer friendly. Even if all politicians are crooked (this is absolutely *not* true), they are not all crooked in the same ways.
Your faith in one batch of weasels over another is cute, but ultimately I think you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. Your notion that all politicians are equally corrupt is quaint, but ultimately, I think you're just setting *US ALL UP* for trouble.
The problem with your theory is that it makes it impossible for any politician to be honorable. It shows prejudice against all parties, which can only benefit those who can be the greatest scoundrel. Think about it.
And, on the topic on hand, a Democratic government is *significantly* more likely to break up MS than a Republican government. The notion that this isn't so is extraordinarily absurd.
The patriot act hasn't been abused. The very *existence* of the PATRIOT Act is abuse. Any argument based on the inverse has no business being made in the land of Jefferson, and that it's not universally laughed out of hand is a disgrace.
The British Governmental Lexicon contains one word the American counterpart lacks: reasonable.
In America, at least at present, the word is only used as a defense, almost exclusively by those in power once they've been caught doing something wrong. But it is no longer in vogue to apply the term towards actions taken by the government (or corporations--basically, anyone with actual power).
On the news here in the US, whenever you hear about a cop shooting someone, nine times out of ten, the person is killed. When a cop is shot, they usually survive. That's because the police here aren't taught to be reasonable, they are taught to win at any cost. It's an American thing[*], and once you realize this, the war in Iraq makes much more sense.
If a tool is available, it *will* be used, in the US. There are no "gentlemen's rules" here. There are certainly men (and women) of honor, but the institutions themselves are not designed to promote honor--in fact, all told, quite the opposite.
So while the London government might show restraint in their abuse of your world renown surveillance system, I would not transfer the trust your city has earned to the US.
Face facts, if a genuinely evil police state took over the UK, they'd be able to build all this stuff anyway if it didn't exist already. Yeah, but at least they'd have to build it. That's something. That will buy time, will draw attention, will be a weakness. If, on the other hand, the system is already in place, the hard part will have already been done for them.
[*] Just read the replies of Americans saying "damn right the cops are going to use overwhelming force! What, do you expect them to let themselves be killed?" (assuming this post garners sufficient attention). A far too influential bloc of Americans have absolutely no issue with the police being Judge, Jury and Executioner. Another useful tidbit when trying to figure out why Americans seem all to willing to give the Executive Branch overreaching powers.
Technically he's correct. Cable by it's very nature is half-duplex. Is that true? I have always assumed cable internet used different frequencies for upstream vs downstream.
Thats why DSL and Fiber (okay, that one is obvious) are always better technologies than cable for last mile, no matter how much bandwidth you throw at it. What do you mean by "better"? DSL speeds are significantly slower than than cable speeds in my area, and cable is only slightly slower than FiOS (download speed, at least). I suppose you might have meant theoretically better, but you said "always", which is certainly not the case.
I find myself extremely skeptical. fuel tanks are usualy fairly far underground. buried tanks are going to be fairly near isothermal and the ambient temperature is not going to change the temp very much on it's short trip to the tank. The question isn't whether the temperature stays the same, but whether the temperature the gallon is measured at matches a reliable, established, standard, which TFA claims it doesn't.
If anyone is getting ripped by this, it's the independent fuel stations. In other words: if someone else is getting ripped off worse, then the person getting ripped off less can't complain?
Finally, were talking a couple of percent difference in energy per gallon here. Don't people suppose that their cars efficiency might also vary by a several percent with ambient temperature? So, then it's perfectly fine to be overcharged so long as something entirely separate affects efficiency after the sale?
Finally, the station sells gas by the gallon not by the BTU. No one said it was. What is claimed is that it's sold by the gallon, with the gallon being defined as at a certain temperature. Or do you buy your produce "by the pound", but allow the grocer to define the gravity it's measured against?
Tell you what, if you *truly* believe your arguments are sound, I'll sell you pound of gold (based on Jupiter's gravity), measured at prices defined against Earth gravity. You shan't complain because I'll sell the same amount of gold to someone else at Moon-measured pounds. And just to be fair, I'll measure the gold I sell you at a constant, "isojupiterpound" level. And even if you *do* think you still have grounds to complain, I'll remind you that there are other factors that will affect the value of the gold you're buying, not just the gravity I measure the pound against. Besides, you're buying by the pound, not the gram, and even if I get to choose the gravity, these measurements are all pounds, aren't they?
Technically IIRC, this would not violate the laws. There is an outside force acting on it in the form of the magnetic fields. The real test of the devices is if it can create more power before the magnets degauss than it takes to create the machine and magnets. That depends. From the description it sounds like just another impossible machine. The only way it could both operate as described and fit what you are saying is if they are tapping into the Earth's magnetic field and drawing energy from it.
On a side note, the demonstration has been canceled due to technical issues. I suppose "is impossible" would qualify as a technical issue.
Consider me curious then - what features of the iPhone are like that portrayed in Star Trek, that aren't in existing phones? Feature-wise, there really isn't anything major. I mean, there's visual voicemail, but that's just voicemail, which all phones have. There's the iPod app, which is the best I've ever used, but that's still just audio and video, right? Safari, Mail, phonebook listings, etc, are all superb and better than anything else out there, but they are all available on most every other phone, and certainly every smart phone.
With current phones, from a capability point of view, they all do things that seem like they are from Star Trek, I fully agree with you on that. Where they all fall short is in the interface. That's what I mean by it actually *feels* like using something from Star Trek, and not just "has the capabilities" of something from Star Trek.
Essentially, doing something on a standard smart phone (or cell phone in general) takes quite a bit of effort. That's why most people don't do much beyond calling, taking photos, and SMS/MMSing. As geeks and technology enthusiasts, most of us here on Slashdot enjoy doing those things enough to overcome effort required--sometimes we enjoy it so much that we even completely ignore the effort, or count it as "part of the fun". With the iPhone (and all things Apple, in general), the effort is so minimized that the interface becomes almost invisible.
Take the task of multi-party calling. Pretty much every phone can do it, and I've done it on every phone I've ever had, but I've *only* done it when I really, *really* wanted to, because the interface was so limited. The process usually involved multiple, "are you there?"s because you're never quite sure who exactly is on hold, who is connected, and who you might have accidentally hung up on. With the iPhone, even though it's the exact same feature, it's so effortless that I am sure I'll use this feature more during the next year than I have on all my past phones combined. The same goes for web browsing, email, etc. With the iPhone, the actual *experience* of using it--every one one of its features--is fun and easy. With all other phones, it's quite impressive to *have* all those features, but using them can be called *many* things other than "fun", and beyond the first time, "hey, this is cool", a large portion of those features will go unused--not because they are not worthwhile features that one might want to use, but because they aren't worth the trouble.
The iPhone is the first phone (or device in general) that I've used that has me feeling confident about leaving my notebook behind, and *that* says a lot.
It's all about the experience. I suggest playing with one at an Apple Store (an AT&T store will do in a pinch). 5 minutes trying out Safari, the iPod, YouTube and the phone features will convey far more than my post possibly could. Even if, after that, you don't think the iPhone is worth $600, or that the features don't match your needs, or that you're going to wait for 3G, or any other number of things, I'm pretty sure you'll know exactly what I meant by my Star Trek comment.
Because we are Slashdotters, we have watched Star Trek and already own a device that does everything the iPhone does. Examples?
Using the iPhone is like using something *from* Star Trek. The iPhone is the single most amazing device I've ever used, although I'm more than willing to be amazed by something else and eagerly await some suggestions.
I mean, if there are existing devices that do everything the iPhone does, and I'm so utterly amazed by the iPhone, I can hardly wait!
However, I suspect a list of the usual suspects that, in comparison to the iPhone, are like using Lynx compared to Firefox (and I don't mean lack of graphics), or DOS vs Macintosh (and here I *do* mean like going from keyboard to mouse). It might be able to do the same tasks, but *how* it does it makes all the difference.
I'm sure your post sounded exceptionally clever in your mind.
However, not so much as written down.
You just said impersonation is fraud, so please turn yourself in to the police. I said impersonating an officer is fraud. I also said that not all fraud is illegal. And I never said people should turn themselves in for impersonation (or fraud).
Still here? Then clearly you were lying I'm here. About what am I therefore lying?
You just said lying is fraud, so please turn yourself in to the police. It is, but see above regarding whether I said all fraud is illegal, and whether I said such people should turn themselves in.
Your dictionary is probably not the best available guide to the law. No, but it's a pretty good guide to words, which is how I was using the word "fraud". In fact, I specifically claimed (and still do) that not all forms of fraud are illegal, which should be a huge clue as to the scope I was using the word, and that I wasn't merely limiting myself to a legal definition.
I took it to mean financial (material would have been a better term for me to use). But he might also mean to include non-material gain, but if he did, then the distinction between lying and fraud becomes less and less clear. Especially since it was meant to disprove *my* example of lying about one's skills, which is an attempt at "unfair gain" (his *actual* words, since you bring it up). Specifically, unfairly gaining respect. Which is similar to another form of fraud, pretending you are a PhD, even if no material gain is involved.
All of which bolsters my point that mere fraud, itself, is not illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
It's one of the universe's many ironies that freedom must be enforced. The reason for this is that if you don't enforce freedom, someone else will assuredly impose their will upon others in contradiction of these others' freedoms. This is a direct result of combining "free will" with the physical capability of adversely hindering the freedom of others.
You guys are insane.
IBM offers a whole category of their IP freely and perpetually, and you ungrateful morons demand more and question IBM's commitment to open source.
Now Apple hires the CUPS developer and buys his code. They're keeping it under the GPL, yet this is part of some grand scheme to close source the technologies they use?
Do you really want to know what Apple did here? They rely heavily on CUPS, so they want to hire the guy who writes it because:
A. Paying him will help motivate him to make CUPS much better much more quickly.
B. Instead of contributing code themselves, it's more efficient to have the main developer do it directly.
C. They now have the world's best CUPS programmer.
They bought rights to the code because that's standard. They're still releasing it under the GPL. They *could* have just closed it, leaving the rest of us to fork the existing GPL'd project.
As for fear of the GPLv3, what, exactly, do you think Apple has to fear from it? Do you think Apple is planning to DRM CUPS? Or patent it all to hell (yet still release it under the GPLv2)? Would a GPLv3 CUPS require Apple to license the whole of OS X under the GPL? Seriously, what do you have in mind?
Apple hired one of the head BSD developers. They hired a well-known Mozilla contributer to work on their own derivative of an Open Sourced web browser back-end, which is now used by Apple's competitors, and yet Apple is showing no interest in closing the project. This is just the same sort of thing. Apple has voluntarily open sourced their own products. They participate in *many* open standards organizations, and they overwhelmingly rely on open and free standards for virtually every aspect of OS X. iCal, WebDAV, IMAP/POP3, CUPS, SQLite, CalDAV, XML, ugh, I could go on. All these technologies, and more, are open and freely usable. They also use some that are open but require a license (H.264). They're not all open source, but it's not like they're actually averse to it, now, are they?
Put the tinfoil hat down. This is not a conspiracy. Apple is not going to close CUPS. They're not afraid of Stallman. This has all come about because CUPS provides a critical function to OS X, and this is the best way to ensure CUPS advances at the pace they want, and evolves in the direction they want.
If Apple is so afraid of GPLv3, what are they going to do about SAMBA?
And how, exactly, do you suppose that alters what I wrote? Ignoring the fact that I specifically added verbiage to state that if you want to disagree on this exact point, it doesn't change the argument (which is a fairly generous offer on my part), are the present war in Iraq and Clinton's bombings in 1998 so exceptionally similar that the differences between the two are of little note?
Even GHWB's war with Iraq, which is exceedingly more similar to the present war, is still quite sufficiently different from the present war to make moral comparisons between the two tricky.
Clinton deserves criticism, and so does Bush. Does that make them equal? Does not the quality, the nature, or the scope of the criticism matter? To the simpleton, it clearly doesn't.
Are you honestly foolish enough to hold that both Bush's and Clinton's actions have negatively altered the world in equal measure? I wish people would realize that voting for the lesser of two evils isn't helping the problem. Wait, lesser of two evils? I thought your whole premise is that they are the equal of two evils.
Tell you what, I'll take a realistic shot at the lesser of two evils over the astronomically improbable shot at the perfect candidate (as though, somehow, your third-party guy is a saint) any day, the same way I'll do something undesirable (say, saw off my own leg) to stave off something worse (like remain trapped under a log, destined to die of dehydration--or worse). I prefer reality to fantasy. But if you wish to believe in faeries and third party presidential candidates, as you wish, just try not to infect the rest of us with your lunacy, if you wouldn't mind.
It's interesting that you seem so eager to equate Bush and Clinton, even though by any rational measure, they are not equal except in the most superficial of ways. It's clear that you must hold this position in order to justify your hopes for that Knight in Shining Armor to come rescue you from the undesirable aspects of reality, that knight known as "Third Party Candidate".
The biggest single mistake the Founding Fathers made was their system led to a two party system. That's the state it finds equilibrium at. You can throw a third party into the mix, and sometimes it shuffles things around, but it invariably settles back to two parties. The second biggest mistake, if you're curious (not that I hold the illusion that you are), is the second amendment was so poorly worded that two it can reasonably support two completely contradictory interpretations.
Your single biggest mistake (at least, on the topic at hand) is to step so far back, to hold yourself so far away, from the politicians in question that the differences seem miniscule, but when you look at them up close (or even from a normal perspective) those differences become exceedingly apparent.
You want to criticize Clinton, I'm right there with you. You want to equate him to Bush, you stand alone.
1. No it's not. It's a congressional transcript. Instead of sending me to search through it, quote the part that says, "the US declares war against Iraq", or the sufficient equivalent.
2. Even if it does say, unequivocally, that the US declares war with Iraq, the difference between then and 2003 is more than clear, and I make that point in my original post. Am I the only one who remembers that we were technically at war from 1991-2003 (Resolution 687 was not an armistice, it was a cease fire!) Technically we're still at war with N. Korea. It would be idiotic to use that as a sound comparison with the present Iraq war pertinent to the topic at hand.
Now along comes Bush, he does what they did, but does it to a greater extreme, and you argue we should just leave him alone? I just don't follow your logic...
Actually, I do, it's: "Clinton did it" absolves all sins.
I always thought you Republicans hated Clinton, but it's becoming clear you think he's up there with Christ. Apologies for having you figured all backwards in the past.
If trial lawyers are so despicable, you should vow to never, EVER, use them. EVER. But you know you would. That either makes *YOU* evil, or them not. Which is it?
Additionally, if trial lawyers are so awful, doesn't that make trials awful, by association? I mean, the whole point of a trial lawyer is to argue a trial. This seems a fairly fundamental requirement for a free and civil society. The vast majority of medical lawsuits involves cases where someone never suffered any significant loss of health, and the doctor wasn't responsible. First off, did you just make that up? Second, even if it's true, do these cases result in the plaintiff winning? Third, isn't that fraud? And again, this does not indict insurance, it indicts flaws in the rules.
Instead of fixing the legal system, you'd rather just do away with that portion of it altogether? What's this got to do with whether insurance itself is good or bad? Or trials are good or bad?
Going to war with a country that was not a threat....CHECK!
Lying to the country....CHECK!
Claiming Iraq had WMDs....CHECK!
Censoring the SG....CHECK!
Firing attorneys....CHECK!
It's astonishing that people who claim to be so preoccupied with morality would be so quick to abandon any semblance of morality for political ends.
You're like whiney little kids. You saw one kid shoplift a candy bar and instead of going to jail, he was sent home to his parents. So you decided you could rob a bank at gunpoint, and cry "foul" that, once caught, you're not simply being sent home as well.
Pathetic, really.
Capping medical malpractice awards is another way of saying, "limiting the rights of the victim". Aren't you conservatives supposed to be all in favor of victim's rights? If your doctor screws up, don't you think you have rights to compensation under the law? Capping compensation is like capping prison sentences. It's like saying, no matter how bad your actions are, you can only be punished so far. For a group that so strongly supports the death penalty, being against having to pay for the damage you've caused seems absurd to the extreme.
How would you feel if everything was capped like this? If your building contractor was similarly capped? Did his malpractice cost you $100 million? Tough, you can only get $200k from him, regardless of whether he was entirely at fault, and found negligent at his profession. That would be insane. How much worse when it's something to do with your health! The Trial Lawyers of America There is absolutely *NOTHING* wrong with being a trial lawyer. To be against them is to basically be against the JUDICIAL system. How insane is that?
You used the derogatory term "Ambulance Chasers" to refer to trial lawyers. If they have a case, if there was fault worthy of a trial, what is *wrong* with seeking to make the guilty party pay? If it weren't for trial lawyers, the US would be a much more dangerous place to live.
I have absolutely no doubt that if someone's actions caused you significant loss of health, *YOU'D* hire the best trial lawyer your money could buy.
The real question is, what, exactly, do people think is going to happen? MS is going to buy the FSF and create a GPLv4 which is just an MS license? Do they think that somehow this means that the FSF will be able to steal your code away from you? None of these things are remotely likely, or in the case of the second, even reasonably possible.
The biggest concern is the FSF really screwing up, inadvertently, a new license. *That's* the only reasonable concern. The FSF has shown great care in the past, and present, in drafting their licenses, and it seems highly reasonable to assume they'll do so in the future. Of course, if it were as easy as you (and others) seem to think to relicense a project from GPLv2 to GPLv3 (or any other earlier-later transition), then there really wouldn't be an issue. But it *is* difficult, unless you are the sole programmer for a project, and you don't die or pass on stewardship of the project to someone else without granting them full copyright of your code. And if you do accept patches or other collaboration, then you'll have to be sure to consolidate fully copyrights from everyone who contributes code (which is the exact thing you are arguing *against* people doing).
On the other hand, just adding "or later" (not adding, actually, just not removing), you avoid all those problems. All those real problems which actually exist. You do leave yourself vulnerable to potential problems, primarily the FSF botching a subsequent license. But if your code is GPLvX or later, if GPLvX+1 is botched, you can still just use GPLvX. Of course, you can't stop others from switching over to a newer license, but your code will remain under the "GPLvX or later" license, if that's what you wish. And even if GPLvX+1 (or later) is botched, it's probably not botched all that much.
So the risk is small, the potential problems are small and fairly limited, and the potential for avoiding non-small, non-low risk problems is great. How is this foolish again?
All for the want of two words. Two words excised for fear of something that is *far less* likely to happen than the above scenario, which is actually quite common.
Republicans just don't believe in anti-trust regulations. Or regulations in general, excepting those which have to do with decency. Democrats do. *That's* the difference. If anything, Democrats depend far more on the high-tech sector of the economy than Republicans do for support, particularly corporate support. In recent years, Microsoft (and its employees) has been a major Democratic donor (#30 overall -- even bigger than the NRA and just beneath the AFL-CIO); in both '04 and '06 they gave the majority of their donations to Democrats.* Wait, bigger than the NRA? To the Democrats? Wow! Then they're definitely going to do as MS commands, if that's your criterion. But less than the AFL-CIO? Hrm... Labor vs corporate monopoly. And somehow this means Democrats won't go after Microsoft, up to and including breaking them up? What a strange, and non-logical conclusion to reach. To be sure, the problem with MS isn't primarily a labor one, but it is the same sort of problem--a corporate bully in the market place. Republicans love them, Democrats hate them. You can't skirt around that. The political philosophy of either of the major parties is basically irrelevant; their actions are virtually always predictable by looking solely at their sources of funding and votes. That's just patently false. It *does* hold true for some people, but it's not as universal as you make it out to be.
No, I just don't buy your argument. It's too full of pseudo-cynical nonsense and hand-waving number conjuring which don't even support your conclusion. There are still states that wish to go after MS, and there are ABSOLUTELY Democrats who will do just that, given the chance (although this may take the back burner to more pressing matters like Iraq and the million-and-a-half other ways the Bush administration has fouled things up). Far more than there are Republicans. To think otherwise is absurd, to say the least.
At this point, however, I *do* agree with you that breaking up MS isn't as likely as it was 6 years ago. This is mostly because MS isn't as severe a threat as they were back then, which is due is large part, IMO, with the sudden significance of Apple during that time. If Apple had taken Michael Dell's advice from that period, MS would be just as bad now as ever. I still think it would benefit the nation (and world) one the whole were MS to split up into various divisions, but I no longer think the pressure to do so exists.
The problem with your theory is that it makes it impossible for any politician to be honorable. It shows prejudice against all parties, which can only benefit those who can be the greatest scoundrel. Think about it.
And, on the topic on hand, a Democratic government is *significantly* more likely to break up MS than a Republican government. The notion that this isn't so is extraordinarily absurd.
Why do you think that would that make you a fool, exactly?
In America, at least at present, the word is only used as a defense, almost exclusively by those in power once they've been caught doing something wrong. But it is no longer in vogue to apply the term towards actions taken by the government (or corporations--basically, anyone with actual power).
On the news here in the US, whenever you hear about a cop shooting someone, nine times out of ten, the person is killed. When a cop is shot, they usually survive. That's because the police here aren't taught to be reasonable, they are taught to win at any cost. It's an American thing[*], and once you realize this, the war in Iraq makes much more sense.
If a tool is available, it *will* be used, in the US. There are no "gentlemen's rules" here. There are certainly men (and women) of honor, but the institutions themselves are not designed to promote honor--in fact, all told, quite the opposite.
So while the London government might show restraint in their abuse of your world renown surveillance system, I would not transfer the trust your city has earned to the US. Face facts, if a genuinely evil police state took over the UK, they'd be able to build all this stuff anyway if it didn't exist already. Yeah, but at least they'd have to build it. That's something. That will buy time, will draw attention, will be a weakness. If, on the other hand, the system is already in place, the hard part will have already been done for them.
[*] Just read the replies of Americans saying "damn right the cops are going to use overwhelming force! What, do you expect them to let themselves be killed?" (assuming this post garners sufficient attention). A far too influential bloc of Americans have absolutely no issue with the police being Judge, Jury and Executioner. Another useful tidbit when trying to figure out why Americans seem all to willing to give the Executive Branch overreaching powers.
BTW, what's the ASCAP fee for your sig?
:-)
Just curious
Tell you what, if you *truly* believe your arguments are sound, I'll sell you pound of gold (based on Jupiter's gravity), measured at prices defined against Earth gravity. You shan't complain because I'll sell the same amount of gold to someone else at Moon-measured pounds. And just to be fair, I'll measure the gold I sell you at a constant, "isojupiterpound" level. And even if you *do* think you still have grounds to complain, I'll remind you that there are other factors that will affect the value of the gold you're buying, not just the gravity I measure the pound against. Besides, you're buying by the pound, not the gram, and even if I get to choose the gravity, these measurements are all pounds, aren't they?
On a side note, the demonstration has been canceled due to technical issues. I suppose "is impossible" would qualify as a technical issue.
With current phones, from a capability point of view, they all do things that seem like they are from Star Trek, I fully agree with you on that. Where they all fall short is in the interface. That's what I mean by it actually *feels* like using something from Star Trek, and not just "has the capabilities" of something from Star Trek.
Essentially, doing something on a standard smart phone (or cell phone in general) takes quite a bit of effort. That's why most people don't do much beyond calling, taking photos, and SMS/MMSing. As geeks and technology enthusiasts, most of us here on Slashdot enjoy doing those things enough to overcome effort required--sometimes we enjoy it so much that we even completely ignore the effort, or count it as "part of the fun". With the iPhone (and all things Apple, in general), the effort is so minimized that the interface becomes almost invisible.
Take the task of multi-party calling. Pretty much every phone can do it, and I've done it on every phone I've ever had, but I've *only* done it when I really, *really* wanted to, because the interface was so limited. The process usually involved multiple, "are you there?"s because you're never quite sure who exactly is on hold, who is connected, and who you might have accidentally hung up on. With the iPhone, even though it's the exact same feature, it's so effortless that I am sure I'll use this feature more during the next year than I have on all my past phones combined. The same goes for web browsing, email, etc. With the iPhone, the actual *experience* of using it--every one one of its features--is fun and easy. With all other phones, it's quite impressive to *have* all those features, but using them can be called *many* things other than "fun", and beyond the first time, "hey, this is cool", a large portion of those features will go unused--not because they are not worthwhile features that one might want to use, but because they aren't worth the trouble.
The iPhone is the first phone (or device in general) that I've used that has me feeling confident about leaving my notebook behind, and *that* says a lot.
It's all about the experience. I suggest playing with one at an Apple Store (an AT&T store will do in a pinch). 5 minutes trying out Safari, the iPod, YouTube and the phone features will convey far more than my post possibly could. Even if, after that, you don't think the iPhone is worth $600, or that the features don't match your needs, or that you're going to wait for 3G, or any other number of things, I'm pretty sure you'll know exactly what I meant by my Star Trek comment.
Using the iPhone is like using something *from* Star Trek. The iPhone is the single most amazing device I've ever used, although I'm more than willing to be amazed by something else and eagerly await some suggestions.
I mean, if there are existing devices that do everything the iPhone does, and I'm so utterly amazed by the iPhone, I can hardly wait!
However, I suspect a list of the usual suspects that, in comparison to the iPhone, are like using Lynx compared to Firefox (and I don't mean lack of graphics), or DOS vs Macintosh (and here I *do* mean like going from keyboard to mouse). It might be able to do the same tasks, but *how* it does it makes all the difference.
I'm sure your post sounded exceptionally clever in your mind.
However, not so much as written down. You just said impersonation is fraud, so please turn yourself in to the police. I said impersonating an officer is fraud. I also said that not all fraud is illegal. And I never said people should turn themselves in for impersonation (or fraud). Still here? Then clearly you were lying I'm here. About what am I therefore lying? You just said lying is fraud, so please turn yourself in to the police. It is, but see above regarding whether I said all fraud is illegal, and whether I said such people should turn themselves in.
I took it to mean financial (material would have been a better term for me to use). But he might also mean to include non-material gain, but if he did, then the distinction between lying and fraud becomes less and less clear. Especially since it was meant to disprove *my* example of lying about one's skills, which is an attempt at "unfair gain" (his *actual* words, since you bring it up). Specifically, unfairly gaining respect. Which is similar to another form of fraud, pretending you are a PhD, even if no material gain is involved.
All of which bolsters my point that mere fraud, itself, is not illegal.