Did I ever say that the Clinton administration was opposed to Kyoto? Here's what I said: "and come to think of it, just about all of congress during the Clinton administration _including_the_democrats_"
Liar. What was the text immediately following your quote above? It was: "(remember, Kyoto was turned down before Bush!)"
In other words, Clinton turned down the treaty. He did no such thing.
Oh look! I said that CONGRESS during the Clinton administration was opposed. Huh, that's kind of different, isn't it?
The treaty was never put before Congress.
You're a liar. You don't stand by your own words. There's nothing wrong with saying something you didn't mean. It happens to everyone. But when called on it, at least have the courtesy to admit so and say, "I worded that poorly".
It's plain and simple that your true stance does not agree with the sentence, "The Kyoto Protocol always was and always will be useless." Don't bother denying it, because it's just more lies. You have already agreed that the Kyoto Protocol has benefits. You just don't think they are worthwhile. That's fine, it's a valid opinion, but lying to me will not work, and lying to yourself is a fool's errand.
"cars are evil" does not equal "Everyone who drives a car is a guilty of ecological genocide!"
The mainstream left does not even claim "cars are evil". The mainstream left drives cars daily.
The mainstream right does claim that if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists. Criticizing "car culture" (not my words) is equated with the terrorists, by the right.
In other words, the original poster compared an exaggerated comment from the left (from your "cars are evil", to his/her "If you criticize car culture, you're with the terrorists," which is nowhere near the exaggeration as the other. I would bet you could find such a comparison on Limbaugh or a Fox News host, in less than a week, whereas the "ecological genocide" comment would be very rare, and not by said by a mainstream leftist host, but by an oddball guest, if it's said at all.
Or to put it numerically, the poster said, the left and right are equally bad, because the left says +10, while the right says -10 (saforrest tried to make it a fair comparison), except that the mainstream left says +3 while the mainstream right says -9. It's not a fair comparison. To pretend it's fair hurts the left and harms the right, in this case.
I'm sure there are cases where the opposite is true, but in recent years they have become less and less common. The right has truly become an exaggerated parody of itself, and in its current state, it's bringing us all down.
No, I've said that the Kyoto treaty is useless environmentally, worse than useless economically, and only slightly useful politically. Don't try and twist my words against me, read carefully what I've typed before trying to make that argument.
No, you said, "The Kyoto Protocol always was and always will be useless."
I pointed out that it's not useless, and you agreed.
We disagree on the breakdown, but I wasn't addressing that. I was *only* addressing your assertion that the treaty is, was, and always will be "useless". You may have meant otherwise, but you didn't write that. I can only address what you've written, and how I've interpreted it.
The justification for the Asian-Pacific Partnership for on Clean Development and Climate was pretty close to what you claim they're not saying
No, the justification for that agreement was that it doesn't have any requirements and isn't binding. We could pollute 1,000x the rate we do today and not be in violation of the agreement. The reason we signed it is because it says we can do whatever the hell we want. If you want to criticize Kyoto for being useless, this is even more so.
Rather, I've heard the Bush administration, and come to think of it, just about all of congress during the Clinton administration _including_the_democrats_ (remember, Kyoto was turned down before Bush!) say that Kyoto was harmful to the economy and not very effective for the environment.
1. Al Gore signed the treaty. The Clinton administration did not "turn it down". We were part of the process up until the time the Bush administration walked away from the treaty altogether. The Clinton administration wanted the treaty, but they wanted to work on it before signing it.
2. I never said that the Democrats had no criticisms of the treaty. *All* that I'm saying is that there are benefits, even if it were to change absolutely *nothing* today with regards to greenhouse gas emissions (which is a contention I dispute, but the point being even worst-case there *are* benefits).
We have already determined that you and I disagree on whether the pluses are worth the minuses in this case. But you can't say, in one breath, that there are absolutely no pluses, then in the next that there are some that you so casually dismiss, which is evident in your complete misunderstanding of my original third point: even if the Kyoto Protocol changed nothing at all, now or ever, even if it adversely affected all of the member nations' economies, there would *still* be the benefit that it would make Kyoto II more likely. And I don't mean it has to be actually another treaty in Kyoto, it could be that all the nations have, by formally entering into the treaty, admitted concern for, and legitimized the threat of, global greenhouse gas emissions, and will, upon seeing the flaws with Kyoto, clamor to meet again and sign a new treaty, having learned from the mistakes of the current one. However, if we walk away from Kyoto, saying it's not a legitimate concern worthy of meaningful action, then we end up with lesser agreements, if we end up with any at all, like the AP6 (which, by the way, is not a treaty, and therefore not ratified by Congress).
In other words, you agree with me that the Kyoto treaty would have an effect, and disagree with your original statement that "The Kyoto Protocol always was and always will be useless."
I've pointed out ways it will help, and you've agreed that they would. You still don't think it's worth it, and really, I don't care if you think it's worth it or not. That's your own decision to make. I was only pointing out your premise was demonstrably wrong.
You can say the Kyoto Protocol doesn't do enough, or that it does more economic harm than it does environmental good. I disagree, but that's another topic altogether. But what you can't say is that it does absolutely no good.
If the treaty would change absolutely nothing in America (as you claim), then why don't we sign it? It would garner good will, and cost us nothing in return, right? Wrong. The reason we don't sign it is because the Bush administration does not want to legitimize the issue it addresses.
You mischaracterized my third point. I wasn't talking about "political brownie points" (a belittling term and in poor taste on your part). I wasn't talking about the government paying lip service on the PR front. I was talking about the government agreeing, in a meaningful way, that greenhouse gas emissions is a legitimate global issue that must be taken seriously. Even if the treaty would change nothing in the US, just signing the treaty would mean something, and it would pave the way for Kyoto II.
The US is not keeping out of the treaty because it would be "useless". No one in the Bush administration is saying, "we really need to do something, but the Kyoto Protocol doesn't do enough". They are saying that it does too much and that we are beholden to no one. Whatever happened to responsibility for our actions?
Again, I don't care if you agree with my support of the treaty, just don't mischaracterize it.
Obviously we can't directly control ocean temperature. Can anyone quantify changes humanity can make and implement to lower ocean temperature directly? Nope.
I can think of a handful of science-fictiony-but-doable ways of doing both. Nuclear winter and seeding clouds are the most obvious.
But I don't see why direct manipulation is such an important point in your post. We can indirectly do a lot. Chaos theory proves that small changes can have large consequences in chaotic systems (the weather is a chaotic system).
Here's an example: The dynamic of the north atlantic and gulf stream currents keep Europe warm. That system can be affected by ice melt in Greenland--a single well-placed nuke in the western hemisphere could send much of Europe into a mini ice age.
I also don't understand what you mean by that "this study shouldn't sway us either way," because you don't list which "either way" you are talking about. Is it, "is global warming real or not?" Is it, "is global warming caused/affected by humans or not?" Is it, "do warmer sea temperatures explain this recent hurricane season or do they not?"
As for the rest of your concerns (how deep do the increased temperatures go? how does this affect our models? how does this affect the ocean and wind currents? etc), you can sure that these questions are all being asked by scientists. The truly convincing thing is that no matter where we look into those questions, the overwhelming answers we find indicate global warming is a real phenomenon, and that historical trends and patterns are insufficient to account for the current rate of change.
I do applaud your skepticism and apparent rationality, but the breadth and depth of data and modeling is really quite convincing on most of the questions listed. The only one that is really in contention is whether human contribution to global climate change is relatively minor, or if it is significant.
The big question, though, is what do we do about it? Even if it turns out we can't do anything useful, we can still benefit from knowing what to expect and encourage people to understand the risks in cities like New Orleans, and have Federal and local contingency plans for likely disasters.
I realize you were trying to be fair, but your two examples:
(e.g. "Everyone who drives a car is a guilty of ecological genocide!", "If you criticize car culture, you're with the terrorists", etc., etc.)
Are not fair. The first is exaggerated to almost comical proportions (very few liberals would actually say such a thing). While the second is something that would not be out of place at all on Limbaugh or Fox News.
I'm not saying the left doesn't have it's silly bromides, or that the right is nothing but absurd lunatics, but your examples really state that the mainstream right is just as bad as an overly-exaggerated caricature of the left, even though your intentions were clear that you were trying to be fairly compare the two.
Just because something doesn't have guaranteed benefits does not mean there are none.
Here are three ways that, assuming your assertions are true, it still helps:
1. Having to trade emission output with other nations is a negative force (you have to negotiate, you may even have to pay), and therefore will want to avoid it. At some point, it will be more cost-effective to actually cut emissions.
2. Agreeing to it requires a nation to take stock of its contribution to global pollution. This may highlight problems not currently known or well measured. It also puts into place a system of actively addressing the issue of pollution, even if the treaty requires no changes to the nation's current industries.
3. (And this is the very reason America hasn't signed the treaty) It legitimizes the concern of pollution as a global issue that nations need to work together on. Signing Kyoto sets the stage for the world to address it again and work on Kyoto II. Additionally, you do not know that your assertions are actually true. Your assertions may turn out to be unfounded, but in the case that they are correct, the signatory nations will be motivated to work on another treaty to address those shortcomings.
Do you think because the doctor gives my child medicine that that means he's raising my child?
Yes. For those 20 minutes, while the doctor is telling a child about the vaccine, or explaining how the ear works, or whatever, she's taking a role raising the child. It's only a short bit, and it is totally eclipsed by the parents' roles in raising the child, but that doesn't negate that fact. Same with a child's teacher.
On the other hand, the bakers and such, who merely provide goods and services with which parents raise a child, still have played a role in the parents' abilities to raise their child.
Bullshit. All these studies are filled with X% this and that, and something is more likely and somethings are less likely...
And wouldn't you want to know what the odds are? If children are more likely to shoplift if they play Pac Man under the age of 5, don't you think it would be a good thing for you to know? Or is that just "bullshit"?
I KNOW my kids, Hillary and Joe do not, so based on some study that didn't even include my kids, they deem to tell me what's best for them. They can bite my shiny metal ass.
Yes, that's how it works. They do this already. You can't take your kids into a bar and get them drunk. You can't invite your kids to an orgy. You must educate your children. You can't beat them. There are a lot of things you are told what you can do.
Allowing a 12 year old to get drunk on special occasions is odds too. They aren't guaranteed to fail at school, or to become alcoholics, or to become drug abusers, whatever. But we know that there are certain correlations.
This story isn't even about telling your kids what games they can play. It's about finding out what sorts of effects games have on children. I am nonplussed by your complete and total opposition to finding out what such a study would find.
I absolutely abhor Lieberman. I don't like his politics. But I fully support the CDC studying how things affect our health. I'm disgusted that I share a nation with people who would rather remain ignorant.
I don't need teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians, neighbors, or anyone else to tell me wether or not my kids play too many video games.
No, but you do need scientists and doctors to tell you what they've discovered about how video games affect children, because you aren't knowledgeable enough on the topic. You might as well say, "I don't need anyone telling me how much lead paint my children need to be exposed to."
Do you really believe parents shouldn't be armed with knowledge when it comes to raising children? Can you possibly believe it's bad to provide parents with info regarding the effects different types of video games have on a child's development?
And, in fact, throughout history children have been raised quite successfully without teachers...
Name one. Genghis Khan? Even if you can name a few, I can name countless others who did have that support system of the village.
Likewise, if I can name a handful of successful people who were raised without parents, does that mean we should do away with parenting?
I didn't say it didn't help, or that some things the community provides aren't beneficial, I said it doesn't take a community to raise a child, it takes parents.
That's a very nice theory you have. It's simple, it says, "stay out of my life, government". It sounds heroic. It makes you want to stand up and salute the flag.
Unfortunately, like all theories, it is worthless if it doesn't coincide with reality. Reality states that a strong and healthy community is more important than just a pair of parents. Good parents are very important. And good community is as well. Even the most moral parents are going to have a hard time raising children in south central, while even horrible parents will be helped with a healthy community.
And more than what you mention, what Hillary MEANT was...
No, she meant that children need a strong support system, a support system that goes well beyond, but does include, a pair of adults, to be raised well. History and the state of the world today bears this out.
What do you do, good parent, when your child needs medicine? Do you grow it in the backyard? Do you pray for them? Or do you take them to the doctor? What happens when it comes time to educate your child? Do you just pass on your own knowledge? Or do you send them to school? Or hire a private teacher? Or if you choose to home school them personally, do you not rely on books and courses designed by others? When it comes time to feed your child, do you grow and raise all your own food, including all of the ingredients? Or do you buy food? Clothes? Entertainment? Etc.
How do you reconcile your theory with reality? The fact is that most parents really aren't all that great. What's more likely to happen, what's more likely to have a more positive result and likeliness of happening: parents are going to just, on their own, become good parents? or building a better society will help produce better children, which will produce better parents and a better society, which will produce better children, and so on?
What your theory amounts to is akin to, "we don't need doctors, you just need to not get sick". Well, given that we do get sick, we do need doctors. Given that we do have children without good parents, what do you do? Do you just say, "hey, I said, you need parents!!!" and hope that fixes things? Or do you work to build a healthy community that all children can benefit from?
Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents.
Are you saying that it doesn't also take teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians, responsible neighbors, a healthy local economy, grocers, farmers, extended family, friends, etc, and so on?
*That's* what Hillary meant. Do you really think she's wrong?
The other guy who replied to this explained that there are two sides to every war.
I suggest you read my response to him. I did not ever say that fighting a war was not necessary or beneficial. The world is better with millions of dead allies and Germans than it would have been allowing Hitler to enslave humanity. But the world would have been better had WWII never started to begin with. As I explained to the person you mention, it only takes one side to start a war. At that point, the morality of war becomes moot, as there is now a war, whether one agrees with it or not. At that point, the question becomes, given this war that now exists, what do we do about it? I fully agree that sometimes one must fight a war. What I don't agree with (and I know it's not you who said this, but it's what brought this whole question up) is that just being profitable is not sufficient to justify a war.
Otherwise, I agree with much of the rest of your post.
War vs peace isn't as simple as the left wing college clubs tell you.
Yes, it is. Liberals and Democrats have fought wars and will fight wars in the future. What's not as simple as people say is the insane notion that if you are a liberal or a democrat, that you can never support a war.
Like most right-wing dogma, it's laughably stupid for being so easily disproved: FDR, JFK, John Kerry.
You bring up Hitler and WWII. The US entering WWII was not immoral. The British responding to Hitler was not immoral. What was immoral was the Germans starting the war to begin with. It only takes one side to start a war. Once one side declares, and more specifically, wages war, it's not inherently immoral for the other side to respond.
Liberals and democrats were very much in support of WWII. We were also very supportive of the Afghanistan invasion following 9/11. We were very much opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and are split on what to do now--whether it's better to leave as quickly as possible, or whether we must take the "you break it, you buy it" policy. But don't you dare, dare try to tell me liberals will not fight to defend our country, which we so dearly love, or that we do not understand the necessity of fighting a war.
In case I've left you confused, in case you think I'm contradicting myself, it would help for you to follow this thread. A very odd person claimed that if something is profitable, it is by definition in humanity's best interest. I pointed out a few things that are profitable, but not "by definition, in humanity's best interest". War is one of them. I did not say that we must never, or can never, enter a war, or that we cannot even start a war, if such a thing is required, but that just because a war is profitable, does not mean it is in humanity's best interest.
Ok, I should have said, "'By implication' profitable ventures are in humanity's best interest."
contradicts
So with our interests against being murdered, robbed, and waged war upon, we prevent them from profiting.
What you've said is, essentially, "profitable ventures are in humanity's best interest, except when they aren't".
In other words, sometimes capitalism serves humanity's best interest, and sometimes it doesn't.
And this is where are fundimental beliefs differ. I believe that that lowest segment, which can't keep themselves alive, lacks either the will or ability to make money.
Or opportunity, or resources.
If you are hit by a car that ran a red light, is it your fault if you die? Should nobody help you because "if you can't keep yourself alive, you deserve to die"? Did you get hit because you are too stupid or too poor to survive being hit by a car? Is your will to live lacking? Or is it that you really don't have the needed resources at hand (an ambulance), or the opportunity to deploy them?
You have based your social, political, and economic philosophy on false premises. Competition (you called it darwinism), freedom, capitalism, all are things which can be (and often are) quite good. But you've extrapolated beyond the facts. These things are not always good. Competition is good, except when cooperation is good. Capitalism is good, except when socialism is good. Freedom is good, except with limitations are good.
It's not capitalism vs communism, not competition vs collectivism, not freedom vs slavery.
If it saves some aluminum manufacturer $1 million/year to dump waste directly into the river that your town uses for water, is it moral for them to pollute the river? No.
Is competition among television standards so good that the consumer must buy multiple TVs and tuners, that stronger stations so completely interfere with weaker stations as to make reception impossible better than having an impartial agency enforce a standard and common practices?
Is freedom so unassailable that we cannot outlaw murder?
Not all services are bad. I'll pay to arrest criminals, keep the neighborhood free of fire, and defend the nation. But I won't... Hell I forgot what I was argueing. My real point is. We know Communism doesn't work. Now it's between Capitalism and Socialism.
Our police, fire, and military services are socialism!
Europe has picked Socialism.
Europe is capitalist and socialist. As are we.
Some things are better done via socialism, others are better done via capitalism.
Socialism and capitalism cannot be taken as incompatible absolutes that one must choose between to the complete exclusion of the other. I'm very glad that people are free to pursue wealth and happiness. I'm also very glad that some of the ways in which they may attempt to do so are either regulated or outright illegal. And I'm also very glad that some things which don't get done by leaving it up to the whims of people's natural choices are funded through taxation.
Let's not put all our eggs in one basket.
I haven't. I believe reality of the situation should dictate the form of the response. Sometimes that's capitalism, sometimes that's socialism, sometimes that's a law that restricts a freedom. I do not believe that theory has any business dictation to reality, because reality always wins.
You, on the other hand, have advocated the one basket of capitalism. If we did that, we would not have any semblance of justice, freedom, safety or prosperity like we have today. That would also be true if we decided to use only the basket of socialism. They would both be bad in different ways, but for the same basic reason: to apply one universally is to act in contradiction to reality, which is always a losing proposition.
Actually, I'd argue that war is very beneficial to humanity
Too bad the point in question is whether war is in "humanity's best interest", and not whether, in spite of all the evils and horrors of war, there is also some benefit.
I'd imagine that every war there has ever been has had something good about it. That doesn't justify them as being in "humanity's best interest".
think of the huge technology increases that occured as a result of world wars I, II, and the Cold War.
And how many millions had to die in the process? So you wouldn't mind a bombing raid over your neighborhood, a nuke or two in your city, the constant fear, the daily disruptions, the hard and uncertain life, so long as your loss is my technological gain? Or is it only in "humanity's best interest" if you aren't among the dead (or, even, the inconvenienced)?
Profitable ventures are by definition in humanity's best interest.
No, they are not. "By definition", they bring in more money than they cost. That does not mean they are in "humanity's best interest".
Proof: murder, robbery, and war, are all profitable, and are very much *not* in humanity's best interest.
It sounds terrible, but I am yet to hear one good reason to make antibiotics for people who can't pay.
Because sometimes it's *you* who can't pay. Ever been broke? Should you deserve to die because you got sneezed on by some unclean jerk during the short period where you didn't have enough money for medication?
If you can't keep yourself alive, you deserve to die. It's that simple.
That's nonsense. By your morals, it would be absolutely moral for someone to kill you, since it would show you are unable to "keep yourself alive", and thus "deserve to die".
What? It's OK for the government to help keep you alive with police, fire, and military? Hypocrite.
Your ideal world is the "law of the jungle". It's in the top of your list, "1. Arm Citizens". What do you think happens when a beloved family member of one of those "armed citizens" becomes deathly ill and needs medicine they can't pay for? Do you think they'll just politely die, as you think is their darwinian duty? Don't count on it.
Darwinism would suggest they take those arms and acquire what they need (or want) by force. Who are you to stop them? It's darwinism, after all.
You've got Darwin all wrong. It's not just the survival of the one with the biggest gun and the most money. It's also strength in numbers. You focus on some lazy, drug-addled, morally inept, socially obscene bum who gets free health care and cry "foul". Just like with freedom of speech, it's not there to help the undesirable elements of society, it's there to help us all. To do so, to do it right, yes, you have to protect the undesirables. But free medical care helps you, too, even if you can fully afford it on your own. Fewer people coming in to the office sick, fewer children getting sick at your school. You lessen unemployment, you lessen stress, you allow people the freedom to spend money on what they want, rather than on what they are forced to, which leads to a stronger economy and a healthier, more robust society.
It makes completely rational sense to provide the public with free access to government services, and it even makes "darwinian" sense, if you must.
As long as you say "I want this or that" even if your desires might benefit others it's all about you and what you want. It's not about sharing, it's about you WANTING to share. Selfish.
When your mother said, "I want you to eat your vegetables", was she being selfish? When your grandmother said, "Here, I want you to have this candy," was she being selfish? When your father wanted to get you what you wanted for Christmas? When your teacher helped you with a question above-and-beyond any employment obligation?
If you're as cynical as your post implies, then no, you know nothing about the words "generous" and "selfish".
"I want" is insufficient to make something selfish. "I want to take from you" is probably selfish, and "I want to give to you" is probably generous. (I qualify with "probably" because one could always come up with counterexamples, but the idea is true in general)
When someone chooses to license some software under an Open Source license, they are, probably, being generous. They could charge you for the software, but have chosen not to. Maybe they have some scheme to exploit the help of others, in which case it's probably selfish, maybe (like Sony with TiVo), they are doing it for expediency, in which case it's more ambivalent. But if it's because the coder wants to make sure the program gets out there and improved, or even more so, wants to help create an environment of openness and sharing, that person is being generous.
There are almost always selfish motivations in even the most generous act, but that does not make something that's overwhelmingly generous a purely selfish act.
Do you know how pointless it would be to transcode a lossy format to a lossless one? It is a complete waste of space regardless of how much space you have available initially.
It's not pointless at all. The point is not only inherent the the entire thread, but it appears at least twice in the post you are replying two. That point is to get the song into a format which will survive the hypothetical end of iTunes.
Fark I was stupid & so is every n00btard who says "burn it and re-encode it."
They are entirely different things. You thought you were increasing the audio quality. The people saying to burn-rip-and-reencode are saying that their music will be usable forever, even in the "worst case" where iTunes folds (a contingency that's not even remotely likely any time soon).
Just re-rip into a lossless format. By the time Apple ever discontinues support for iTunes purchases (Apple would never do that voluntarily), the increased disk space that would require won't even be noticeable.
I think part of the problem is that people now have something 'invested' in iTunes or their iPod and because of that, they'll defend it. Even if you give them proof they may have made a bad choice.
then
I'm not saying iTunes is bad
If you aren't, the bolded quote would seem to be out of place. At the very least, you are implying buying iTunes music is a bad choice. There's definitely some risk, but Apple engineered an out into their system.
iTunes is cheaper, faster, easier. iTunes might, some day, force me to burn and re-encode my songs, maybe. I'm not worried at all. Even the worst-case scenario is acceptable.
I never understood this. What part of the BSD license does not ensure that MY code remains free.
It doesn't, but that's not what I said. The code on your hard drive is still free (if you want it to be).
As I look at it, once someone modifies / changes/derrives my code, it's no longer exclusively MY code and therefore does not have to be free.
Then the BSD license would be a good match for you. Like I said, it all depends on what you want.
Furthermore, even if that remains my code, my code is still free because I provide it under BSD and people still have access to MY code, just not the my code that someone else has.
The code you are making available is still freely available from you, but your code which is now being included in some proprietary program is not free. It's up to you whether that's what you want.
This essentially is a restatement of my previous post. If you want to promote and protect the freedom of your code, use the GPL. If you want your code to be used, free or not, use the BSD license. One fundamentally promotes use, the other fundamentally promotes freedom.
For an analogy, imagine two free countries. In one, people are free to become slaves, the other they are forbidden to do so. Which is more free? In one, the people have one extra freedom, but that freedom can be used to subvert freedom. The other has one extra restriction, but that restriction promotes/protects freedom.
It's somewhat ironic that in order to promote freedom, one must limit freedom, but that's reality, and reality is always right, ironic or not.
Hmm, I have the impression that many, many sentences that start with "I want..." end up being selfish gibberish in the end. There are exceptions, though.
Such as "I want this software to be free", which is the sentence in question, which isn't "selfish gibberish".
But more generally, I was making the distinction between selfishness and will. Will is wanting things to be a certain way. Selfishness is wanting things for yourself. Sometimes these coincide, sometimes they do not, but I was pointing out is that they are not the same thing.
Placing your program under the GPL is a matter of will. You will it to be, and you have the right and capability to make it so. Doing so is not an act of selfishness, it's an act of generosity.
Who cares whether Apple gives you back their changes or not?
Obviously the Linux-NTFS people do.
Are the Linux-NTFS developers admitting that Apple can do things that they themselves are too dumb to figure out?
No.
How can software truly be free (as in speech) when you place these sorts of restrictions on people who want to use it?
The restrictions are there to ensure freedom. You might as well as the question, "how can a nation be 'free' if it has laws which put restrictions on its citizenry?"
Make whatever philosophical and ethical arguments you wish -- it's just wankery.
There are three problems with that. First, you just made a specific philosophical argument (re: freedom of speech). Second, your whole post is a governed by philosophy. Third, the whole basis behind GNU and the GPL is philosophical. You might as well tell a mathematician that their solution to the Monty Hall problem is rubbish, because it's not obvious to you, and that any mathematical arguments are "just wankery".
Ultimately it boils down to pure selfishness.
You're confusing selfishness and will. Placing software under the GPL a matter of will (such as stating, "I want this software to have these four freedoms, and to be compatible with other GPL software"), but it's not "selfish".
Feh. Long live the BSD license.
BSD and GPL have two very different, although similar, goals. The BSD license is best if you most want for your code to be used, in absolutely any way whatsoever. The GPL is best for ensuring your code remains free. Which you prefer is a very philosophical, and personal, choice, but neither is "selfish".
Why do people continuously append the word "technology" to technical terms ?
To indicate they are talking about the underlying technology.
Solar Sail: the thing Solar Sail Technology: The machinery, engineering, application of science, etc, involved in creating the thing Solar Sail Science: Natural laws governing and/or applicable to the thing
You don't understand. The term "rich" no longer has anything to do with wealth. It's simply a term people throw around that means "someone who I think for some misguided reason should be treated badly or differently".
No, they still mean "rich" as in "have lots of money".
And to the GP, you will find if you pay attention, that most rich people who's names you know have worked very hard.
"Worked very hard"? You mean, 12 hours a day in a coal mine? 18 hours a day driving a truck? At the shipyards? In the hot sun all day? Probably not.
Yes, they worked hard(ish), but it wasn't the hard work that got them the money, it was the type of work they had, and many of them don't actually have to work all that hard, or perform all that well, to make their millions.
There's nothing wrong with being rich. What raises people's ire about the rich are things like some asshole walking in and firing someone on the spot for playing solitaire, or for cutting workers' pensions, while giving themselves a raise, or for getting rich despite incessant failure. Essentially it's about fairness, and before you knee-jerk react, thinking "fair, the only fairness is to make everyone equally poor", I'm talking about fairness in the processes of the system, not guaranteed success (which is just a right-wing straw-man).
Slashdot Mirror
Did I ever say that the Clinton administration was opposed to Kyoto? Here's what I said:
"and come to think of it, just about all of congress during the Clinton administration _including_the_democrats_"
Liar. What was the text immediately following your quote above? It was: "(remember, Kyoto was turned down before Bush!)"
In other words, Clinton turned down the treaty. He did no such thing.
Oh look! I said that CONGRESS during the Clinton administration was opposed. Huh, that's kind of different, isn't it?
The treaty was never put before Congress.
You're a liar. You don't stand by your own words. There's nothing wrong with saying something you didn't mean. It happens to everyone. But when called on it, at least have the courtesy to admit so and say, "I worded that poorly".
It's plain and simple that your true stance does not agree with the sentence, "The Kyoto Protocol always was and always will be useless." Don't bother denying it, because it's just more lies. You have already agreed that the Kyoto Protocol has benefits. You just don't think they are worthwhile. That's fine, it's a valid opinion, but lying to me will not work, and lying to yourself is a fool's errand.
Good day.
"cars are evil" does not equal "Everyone who drives a car is a guilty of ecological genocide!"
The mainstream left does not even claim "cars are evil". The mainstream left drives cars daily.
The mainstream right does claim that if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists. Criticizing "car culture" (not my words) is equated with the terrorists, by the right.
In other words, the original poster compared an exaggerated comment from the left (from your "cars are evil", to his/her "If you criticize car culture, you're with the terrorists," which is nowhere near the exaggeration as the other. I would bet you could find such a comparison on Limbaugh or a Fox News host, in less than a week, whereas the "ecological genocide" comment would be very rare, and not by said by a mainstream leftist host, but by an oddball guest, if it's said at all.
Or to put it numerically, the poster said, the left and right are equally bad, because the left says +10, while the right says -10 (saforrest tried to make it a fair comparison), except that the mainstream left says +3 while the mainstream right says -9. It's not a fair comparison. To pretend it's fair hurts the left and harms the right, in this case.
I'm sure there are cases where the opposite is true, but in recent years they have become less and less common. The right has truly become an exaggerated parody of itself, and in its current state, it's bringing us all down.
No, I've said that the Kyoto treaty is useless environmentally, worse than useless economically, and only slightly useful politically. Don't try and twist my words against me, read carefully what I've typed before trying to make that argument.
No, you said, "The Kyoto Protocol always was and always will be useless."
I pointed out that it's not useless, and you agreed.
We disagree on the breakdown, but I wasn't addressing that. I was *only* addressing your assertion that the treaty is, was, and always will be "useless". You may have meant otherwise, but you didn't write that. I can only address what you've written, and how I've interpreted it.
The justification for the Asian-Pacific Partnership for on Clean Development and Climate was pretty close to what you claim they're not saying
No, the justification for that agreement was that it doesn't have any requirements and isn't binding. We could pollute 1,000x the rate we do today and not be in violation of the agreement. The reason we signed it is because it says we can do whatever the hell we want. If you want to criticize Kyoto for being useless, this is even more so.
Rather, I've heard the Bush administration, and come to think of it, just about all of congress during the Clinton administration _including_the_democrats_ (remember, Kyoto was turned down before Bush!) say that Kyoto was harmful to the economy and not very effective for the environment.
1. Al Gore signed the treaty. The Clinton administration did not "turn it down". We were part of the process up until the time the Bush administration walked away from the treaty altogether. The Clinton administration wanted the treaty, but they wanted to work on it before signing it.
2. I never said that the Democrats had no criticisms of the treaty. *All* that I'm saying is that there are benefits, even if it were to change absolutely *nothing* today with regards to greenhouse gas emissions (which is a contention I dispute, but the point being even worst-case there *are* benefits).
We have already determined that you and I disagree on whether the pluses are worth the minuses in this case. But you can't say, in one breath, that there are absolutely no pluses, then in the next that there are some that you so casually dismiss, which is evident in your complete misunderstanding of my original third point: even if the Kyoto Protocol changed nothing at all, now or ever, even if it adversely affected all of the member nations' economies, there would *still* be the benefit that it would make Kyoto II more likely. And I don't mean it has to be actually another treaty in Kyoto, it could be that all the nations have, by formally entering into the treaty, admitted concern for, and legitimized the threat of, global greenhouse gas emissions, and will, upon seeing the flaws with Kyoto, clamor to meet again and sign a new treaty, having learned from the mistakes of the current one. However, if we walk away from Kyoto, saying it's not a legitimate concern worthy of meaningful action, then we end up with lesser agreements, if we end up with any at all, like the AP6 (which, by the way, is not a treaty, and therefore not ratified by Congress).
In other words, you agree with me that the Kyoto treaty would have an effect, and disagree with your original statement that "The Kyoto Protocol always was and always will be useless."
I've pointed out ways it will help, and you've agreed that they would. You still don't think it's worth it, and really, I don't care if you think it's worth it or not. That's your own decision to make. I was only pointing out your premise was demonstrably wrong.
You can say the Kyoto Protocol doesn't do enough, or that it does more economic harm than it does environmental good. I disagree, but that's another topic altogether. But what you can't say is that it does absolutely no good.
If the treaty would change absolutely nothing in America (as you claim), then why don't we sign it? It would garner good will, and cost us nothing in return, right? Wrong. The reason we don't sign it is because the Bush administration does not want to legitimize the issue it addresses.
You mischaracterized my third point. I wasn't talking about "political brownie points" (a belittling term and in poor taste on your part). I wasn't talking about the government paying lip service on the PR front. I was talking about the government agreeing, in a meaningful way, that greenhouse gas emissions is a legitimate global issue that must be taken seriously. Even if the treaty would change nothing in the US, just signing the treaty would mean something, and it would pave the way for Kyoto II.
The US is not keeping out of the treaty because it would be "useless". No one in the Bush administration is saying, "we really need to do something, but the Kyoto Protocol doesn't do enough". They are saying that it does too much and that we are beholden to no one. Whatever happened to responsibility for our actions?
Again, I don't care if you agree with my support of the treaty, just don't mischaracterize it.
Obviously we can't directly control ocean temperature. Can anyone quantify changes humanity can make and implement to lower ocean temperature directly? Nope.
I can think of a handful of science-fictiony-but-doable ways of doing both. Nuclear winter and seeding clouds are the most obvious.
But I don't see why direct manipulation is such an important point in your post. We can indirectly do a lot. Chaos theory proves that small changes can have large consequences in chaotic systems (the weather is a chaotic system).
Here's an example: The dynamic of the north atlantic and gulf stream currents keep Europe warm. That system can be affected by ice melt in Greenland--a single well-placed nuke in the western hemisphere could send much of Europe into a mini ice age.
I also don't understand what you mean by that "this study shouldn't sway us either way," because you don't list which "either way" you are talking about. Is it, "is global warming real or not?" Is it, "is global warming caused/affected by humans or not?" Is it, "do warmer sea temperatures explain this recent hurricane season or do they not?"
As for the rest of your concerns (how deep do the increased temperatures go? how does this affect our models? how does this affect the ocean and wind currents? etc), you can sure that these questions are all being asked by scientists. The truly convincing thing is that no matter where we look into those questions, the overwhelming answers we find indicate global warming is a real phenomenon, and that historical trends and patterns are insufficient to account for the current rate of change.
I do applaud your skepticism and apparent rationality, but the breadth and depth of data and modeling is really quite convincing on most of the questions listed. The only one that is really in contention is whether human contribution to global climate change is relatively minor, or if it is significant.
The big question, though, is what do we do about it? Even if it turns out we can't do anything useful, we can still benefit from knowing what to expect and encourage people to understand the risks in cities like New Orleans, and have Federal and local contingency plans for likely disasters.
Are not fair. The first is exaggerated to almost comical proportions (very few liberals would actually say such a thing). While the second is something that would not be out of place at all on Limbaugh or Fox News.
I'm not saying the left doesn't have it's silly bromides, or that the right is nothing but absurd lunatics, but your examples really state that the mainstream right is just as bad as an overly-exaggerated caricature of the left, even though your intentions were clear that you were trying to be fairly compare the two.
Just because something doesn't have guaranteed benefits does not mean there are none.
Here are three ways that, assuming your assertions are true, it still helps:
1. Having to trade emission output with other nations is a negative force (you have to negotiate, you may even have to pay), and therefore will want to avoid it. At some point, it will be more cost-effective to actually cut emissions.
2. Agreeing to it requires a nation to take stock of its contribution to global pollution. This may highlight problems not currently known or well measured. It also puts into place a system of actively addressing the issue of pollution, even if the treaty requires no changes to the nation's current industries.
3. (And this is the very reason America hasn't signed the treaty) It legitimizes the concern of pollution as a global issue that nations need to work together on. Signing Kyoto sets the stage for the world to address it again and work on Kyoto II. Additionally, you do not know that your assertions are actually true. Your assertions may turn out to be unfounded, but in the case that they are correct, the signatory nations will be motivated to work on another treaty to address those shortcomings.
(My apologies to TripMaster Monkey)
Don't worry, he still owes us an apology for his sig.
Do you think because the doctor gives my child medicine that that means he's raising my child?
Yes. For those 20 minutes, while the doctor is telling a child about the vaccine, or explaining how the ear works, or whatever, she's taking a role raising the child. It's only a short bit, and it is totally eclipsed by the parents' roles in raising the child, but that doesn't negate that fact. Same with a child's teacher.
On the other hand, the bakers and such, who merely provide goods and services with which parents raise a child, still have played a role in the parents' abilities to raise their child.
Bullshit. All these studies are filled with X% this and that, and something is more likely and somethings are less likely...
And wouldn't you want to know what the odds are? If children are more likely to shoplift if they play Pac Man under the age of 5, don't you think it would be a good thing for you to know? Or is that just "bullshit"?
I KNOW my kids, Hillary and Joe do not, so based on some study that didn't even include my kids, they deem to tell me what's best for them. They can bite my shiny metal ass.
Yes, that's how it works. They do this already. You can't take your kids into a bar and get them drunk. You can't invite your kids to an orgy. You must educate your children. You can't beat them. There are a lot of things you are told what you can do.
Allowing a 12 year old to get drunk on special occasions is odds too. They aren't guaranteed to fail at school, or to become alcoholics, or to become drug abusers, whatever. But we know that there are certain correlations.
This story isn't even about telling your kids what games they can play. It's about finding out what sorts of effects games have on children. I am nonplussed by your complete and total opposition to finding out what such a study would find.
I absolutely abhor Lieberman. I don't like his politics. But I fully support the CDC studying how things affect our health. I'm disgusted that I share a nation with people who would rather remain ignorant.
I don't need teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians, neighbors, or anyone else to tell me wether or not my kids play too many video games.
No, but you do need scientists and doctors to tell you what they've discovered about how video games affect children, because you aren't knowledgeable enough on the topic. You might as well say, "I don't need anyone telling me how much lead paint my children need to be exposed to."
Do you really believe parents shouldn't be armed with knowledge when it comes to raising children? Can you possibly believe it's bad to provide parents with info regarding the effects different types of video games have on a child's development?
And, in fact, throughout history children have been raised quite successfully without teachers...
Name one. Genghis Khan? Even if you can name a few, I can name countless others who did have that support system of the village.
Likewise, if I can name a handful of successful people who were raised without parents, does that mean we should do away with parenting?
I didn't say it didn't help, or that some things the community provides aren't beneficial, I said it doesn't take a community to raise a child, it takes parents.
That's a very nice theory you have. It's simple, it says, "stay out of my life, government". It sounds heroic. It makes you want to stand up and salute the flag.
Unfortunately, like all theories, it is worthless if it doesn't coincide with reality. Reality states that a strong and healthy community is more important than just a pair of parents. Good parents are very important. And good community is as well. Even the most moral parents are going to have a hard time raising children in south central, while even horrible parents will be helped with a healthy community.
And more than what you mention, what Hillary MEANT was...
No, she meant that children need a strong support system, a support system that goes well beyond, but does include, a pair of adults, to be raised well. History and the state of the world today bears this out.
What do you do, good parent, when your child needs medicine? Do you grow it in the backyard? Do you pray for them? Or do you take them to the doctor? What happens when it comes time to educate your child? Do you just pass on your own knowledge? Or do you send them to school? Or hire a private teacher? Or if you choose to home school them personally, do you not rely on books and courses designed by others? When it comes time to feed your child, do you grow and raise all your own food, including all of the ingredients? Or do you buy food? Clothes? Entertainment? Etc.
How do you reconcile your theory with reality? The fact is that most parents really aren't all that great. What's more likely to happen, what's more likely to have a more positive result and likeliness of happening: parents are going to just, on their own, become good parents? or building a better society will help produce better children, which will produce better parents and a better society, which will produce better children, and so on?
What your theory amounts to is akin to, "we don't need doctors, you just need to not get sick". Well, given that we do get sick, we do need doctors. Given that we do have children without good parents, what do you do? Do you just say, "hey, I said, you need parents!!!" and hope that fixes things? Or do you work to build a healthy community that all children can benefit from?
Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents.
Are you saying that it doesn't also take teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians, responsible neighbors, a healthy local economy, grocers, farmers, extended family, friends, etc, and so on?
*That's* what Hillary meant. Do you really think she's wrong?
I checked the site, but it was in German.
...
Laut Berichten über das LinuxForum in Dänemark
It appears that Laut Berichten announced at LinuxForum in Denmark that they are switching to Super DOS.
I hope that clears things up.
The other guy who replied to this explained that there are two sides to every war.
I suggest you read my response to him. I did not ever say that fighting a war was not necessary or beneficial. The world is better with millions of dead allies and Germans than it would have been allowing Hitler to enslave humanity. But the world would have been better had WWII never started to begin with. As I explained to the person you mention, it only takes one side to start a war. At that point, the morality of war becomes moot, as there is now a war, whether one agrees with it or not. At that point, the question becomes, given this war that now exists, what do we do about it? I fully agree that sometimes one must fight a war. What I don't agree with (and I know it's not you who said this, but it's what brought this whole question up) is that just being profitable is not sufficient to justify a war.
Otherwise, I agree with much of the rest of your post.
War vs peace isn't as simple as the left wing college clubs tell you.
Yes, it is. Liberals and Democrats have fought wars and will fight wars in the future. What's not as simple as people say is the insane notion that if you are a liberal or a democrat, that you can never support a war.
Like most right-wing dogma, it's laughably stupid for being so easily disproved: FDR, JFK, John Kerry.
You bring up Hitler and WWII. The US entering WWII was not immoral. The British responding to Hitler was not immoral. What was immoral was the Germans starting the war to begin with. It only takes one side to start a war. Once one side declares, and more specifically, wages war, it's not inherently immoral for the other side to respond.
Liberals and democrats were very much in support of WWII. We were also very supportive of the Afghanistan invasion following 9/11. We were very much opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and are split on what to do now--whether it's better to leave as quickly as possible, or whether we must take the "you break it, you buy it" policy. But don't you dare, dare try to tell me liberals will not fight to defend our country, which we so dearly love, or that we do not understand the necessity of fighting a war.
In case I've left you confused, in case you think I'm contradicting myself, it would help for you to follow this thread. A very odd person claimed that if something is profitable, it is by definition in humanity's best interest. I pointed out a few things that are profitable, but not "by definition, in humanity's best interest". War is one of them. I did not say that we must never, or can never, enter a war, or that we cannot even start a war, if such a thing is required, but that just because a war is profitable, does not mean it is in humanity's best interest.
Ok, I should have said, "'By implication' profitable ventures are in humanity's best interest."
contradicts
So with our interests against being murdered, robbed, and waged war upon, we prevent them from profiting.
What you've said is, essentially, "profitable ventures are in humanity's best interest, except when they aren't".
In other words, sometimes capitalism serves humanity's best interest, and sometimes it doesn't.
And this is where are fundimental beliefs differ. I believe that that lowest segment, which can't keep themselves alive, lacks either the will or ability to make money.
Or opportunity, or resources.
If you are hit by a car that ran a red light, is it your fault if you die? Should nobody help you because "if you can't keep yourself alive, you deserve to die"? Did you get hit because you are too stupid or too poor to survive being hit by a car? Is your will to live lacking? Or is it that you really don't have the needed resources at hand (an ambulance), or the opportunity to deploy them?
You have based your social, political, and economic philosophy on false premises. Competition (you called it darwinism), freedom, capitalism, all are things which can be (and often are) quite good. But you've extrapolated beyond the facts. These things are not always good. Competition is good, except when cooperation is good. Capitalism is good, except when socialism is good. Freedom is good, except with limitations are good.
It's not capitalism vs communism, not competition vs collectivism, not freedom vs slavery.
If it saves some aluminum manufacturer $1 million/year to dump waste directly into the river that your town uses for water, is it moral for them to pollute the river? No.
Is competition among television standards so good that the consumer must buy multiple TVs and tuners, that stronger stations so completely interfere with weaker stations as to make reception impossible better than having an impartial agency enforce a standard and common practices?
Is freedom so unassailable that we cannot outlaw murder?
Not all services are bad. I'll pay to arrest criminals, keep the neighborhood free of fire, and defend the nation. But I won't... Hell I forgot what I was argueing. My real point is. We know Communism doesn't work. Now it's between Capitalism and Socialism.
Our police, fire, and military services are socialism!
Europe has picked Socialism.
Europe is capitalist and socialist. As are we.
Some things are better done via socialism, others are better done via capitalism.
Socialism and capitalism cannot be taken as incompatible absolutes that one must choose between to the complete exclusion of the other. I'm very glad that people are free to pursue wealth and happiness. I'm also very glad that some of the ways in which they may attempt to do so are either regulated or outright illegal. And I'm also very glad that some things which don't get done by leaving it up to the whims of people's natural choices are funded through taxation.
Let's not put all our eggs in one basket.
I haven't. I believe reality of the situation should dictate the form of the response. Sometimes that's capitalism, sometimes that's socialism, sometimes that's a law that restricts a freedom. I do not believe that theory has any business dictation to reality, because reality always wins.
You, on the other hand, have advocated the one basket of capitalism. If we did that, we would not have any semblance of justice, freedom, safety or prosperity like we have today. That would also be true if we decided to use only the basket of socialism. They would both be bad in different ways, but for the same basic reason: to apply one universally is to act in contradiction to reality, which is always a losing proposition.
Actually, I'd argue that war is very beneficial to humanity
Too bad the point in question is whether war is in "humanity's best interest", and not whether, in spite of all the evils and horrors of war, there is also some benefit.
I'd imagine that every war there has ever been has had something good about it. That doesn't justify them as being in "humanity's best interest".
think of the huge technology increases that occured as a result of world wars I, II, and the Cold War.
And how many millions had to die in the process? So you wouldn't mind a bombing raid over your neighborhood, a nuke or two in your city, the constant fear, the daily disruptions, the hard and uncertain life, so long as your loss is my technological gain? Or is it only in "humanity's best interest" if you aren't among the dead (or, even, the inconvenienced)?
Profitable ventures are by definition in humanity's best interest.
No, they are not. "By definition", they bring in more money than they cost. That does not mean they are in "humanity's best interest".
Proof: murder, robbery, and war, are all profitable, and are very much *not* in humanity's best interest.
It sounds terrible, but I am yet to hear one good reason to make antibiotics for people who can't pay.
Because sometimes it's *you* who can't pay. Ever been broke? Should you deserve to die because you got sneezed on by some unclean jerk during the short period where you didn't have enough money for medication?
If you can't keep yourself alive, you deserve to die. It's that simple.
That's nonsense. By your morals, it would be absolutely moral for someone to kill you, since it would show you are unable to "keep yourself alive", and thus "deserve to die".
What? It's OK for the government to help keep you alive with police, fire, and military? Hypocrite.
Your ideal world is the "law of the jungle". It's in the top of your list, "1. Arm Citizens". What do you think happens when a beloved family member of one of those "armed citizens" becomes deathly ill and needs medicine they can't pay for? Do you think they'll just politely die, as you think is their darwinian duty? Don't count on it.
Darwinism would suggest they take those arms and acquire what they need (or want) by force. Who are you to stop them? It's darwinism, after all.
You've got Darwin all wrong. It's not just the survival of the one with the biggest gun and the most money. It's also strength in numbers. You focus on some lazy, drug-addled, morally inept, socially obscene bum who gets free health care and cry "foul". Just like with freedom of speech, it's not there to help the undesirable elements of society, it's there to help us all. To do so, to do it right, yes, you have to protect the undesirables. But free medical care helps you, too, even if you can fully afford it on your own. Fewer people coming in to the office sick, fewer children getting sick at your school. You lessen unemployment, you lessen stress, you allow people the freedom to spend money on what they want, rather than on what they are forced to, which leads to a stronger economy and a healthier, more robust society.
It makes completely rational sense to provide the public with free access to government services, and it even makes "darwinian" sense, if you must.
As long as you say "I want this or that" even if your desires might benefit others it's all about you and what you want. It's not about sharing, it's about you WANTING to share. Selfish.
When your mother said, "I want you to eat your vegetables", was she being selfish? When your grandmother said, "Here, I want you to have this candy," was she being selfish? When your father wanted to get you what you wanted for Christmas? When your teacher helped you with a question above-and-beyond any employment obligation?
If you're as cynical as your post implies, then no, you know nothing about the words "generous" and "selfish".
"I want" is insufficient to make something selfish. "I want to take from you" is probably selfish, and "I want to give to you" is probably generous. (I qualify with "probably" because one could always come up with counterexamples, but the idea is true in general)
When someone chooses to license some software under an Open Source license, they are, probably, being generous. They could charge you for the software, but have chosen not to. Maybe they have some scheme to exploit the help of others, in which case it's probably selfish, maybe (like Sony with TiVo), they are doing it for expediency, in which case it's more ambivalent. But if it's because the coder wants to make sure the program gets out there and improved, or even more so, wants to help create an environment of openness and sharing, that person is being generous.
There are almost always selfish motivations in even the most generous act, but that does not make something that's overwhelmingly generous a purely selfish act.
Do you know how pointless it would be to transcode a lossy format to a lossless one? It is a complete waste of space regardless of how much space you have available initially.
It's not pointless at all. The point is not only inherent the the entire thread, but it appears at least twice in the post you are replying two. That point is to get the song into a format which will survive the hypothetical end of iTunes.
Fark I was stupid & so is every n00btard who says "burn it and re-encode it."
They are entirely different things. You thought you were increasing the audio quality. The people saying to burn-rip-and-reencode are saying that their music will be usable forever, even in the "worst case" where iTunes folds (a contingency that's not even remotely likely any time soon).
Just re-rip into a lossless format. By the time Apple ever discontinues support for iTunes purchases (Apple would never do that voluntarily), the increased disk space that would require won't even be noticeable.
I think part of the problem is that people now have something 'invested' in iTunes or their iPod and because of that, they'll defend it. Even if you give them proof they may have made a bad choice.
then
I'm not saying iTunes is bad
If you aren't, the bolded quote would seem to be out of place. At the very least, you are implying buying iTunes music is a bad choice. There's definitely some risk, but Apple engineered an out into their system.
iTunes is cheaper, faster, easier. iTunes might, some day, force me to burn and re-encode my songs, maybe. I'm not worried at all. Even the worst-case scenario is acceptable.
I never understood this. What part of the BSD license does not ensure that MY code remains free.
/derrives my code, it's no longer exclusively MY code and therefore does not have to be free.
It doesn't, but that's not what I said. The code on your hard drive is still free (if you want it to be).
As I look at it, once someone modifies / changes
Then the BSD license would be a good match for you. Like I said, it all depends on what you want.
Furthermore, even if that remains my code, my code is still free because I provide it under BSD and people still have access to MY code, just not the my code that someone else has.
The code you are making available is still freely available from you, but your code which is now being included in some proprietary program is not free. It's up to you whether that's what you want.
This essentially is a restatement of my previous post. If you want to promote and protect the freedom of your code, use the GPL. If you want your code to be used, free or not, use the BSD license. One fundamentally promotes use, the other fundamentally promotes freedom.
For an analogy, imagine two free countries. In one, people are free to become slaves, the other they are forbidden to do so. Which is more free? In one, the people have one extra freedom, but that freedom can be used to subvert freedom. The other has one extra restriction, but that restriction promotes/protects freedom.
It's somewhat ironic that in order to promote freedom, one must limit freedom, but that's reality, and reality is always right, ironic or not.
Hmm, I have the impression that many, many sentences that start with "I want..." end up being selfish gibberish in the end. There are exceptions, though.
Such as "I want this software to be free", which is the sentence in question, which isn't "selfish gibberish".
But more generally, I was making the distinction between selfishness and will. Will is wanting things to be a certain way. Selfishness is wanting things for yourself. Sometimes these coincide, sometimes they do not, but I was pointing out is that they are not the same thing.
Placing your program under the GPL is a matter of will. You will it to be, and you have the right and capability to make it so. Doing so is not an act of selfishness, it's an act of generosity.
Who cares whether Apple gives you back their changes or not?
Obviously the Linux-NTFS people do.
Are the Linux-NTFS developers admitting that Apple can do things that they themselves are too dumb to figure out?
No.
How can software truly be free (as in speech) when you place these sorts of restrictions on people who want to use it?
The restrictions are there to ensure freedom. You might as well as the question, "how can a nation be 'free' if it has laws which put restrictions on its citizenry?"
Make whatever philosophical and ethical arguments you wish -- it's just wankery.
There are three problems with that. First, you just made a specific philosophical argument (re: freedom of speech). Second, your whole post is a governed by philosophy. Third, the whole basis behind GNU and the GPL is philosophical. You might as well tell a mathematician that their solution to the Monty Hall problem is rubbish, because it's not obvious to you, and that any mathematical arguments are "just wankery".
Ultimately it boils down to pure selfishness.
You're confusing selfishness and will. Placing software under the GPL a matter of will (such as stating, "I want this software to have these four freedoms, and to be compatible with other GPL software"), but it's not "selfish".
Feh. Long live the BSD license.
BSD and GPL have two very different, although similar, goals. The BSD license is best if you most want for your code to be used, in absolutely any way whatsoever. The GPL is best for ensuring your code remains free. Which you prefer is a very philosophical, and personal, choice, but neither is "selfish".
Why do people continuously append the word "technology" to technical terms ?
To indicate they are talking about the underlying technology.
Solar Sail: the thing
Solar Sail Technology: The machinery, engineering, application of science, etc, involved in creating the thing
Solar Sail Science: Natural laws governing and/or applicable to the thing
You don't understand. The term "rich" no longer has anything to do with wealth. It's simply a term people throw around that means "someone who I think for some misguided reason should be treated badly or differently".
No, they still mean "rich" as in "have lots of money".
And to the GP, you will find if you pay attention, that most rich people who's names you know have worked very hard.
"Worked very hard"? You mean, 12 hours a day in a coal mine? 18 hours a day driving a truck? At the shipyards? In the hot sun all day? Probably not.
Yes, they worked hard(ish), but it wasn't the hard work that got them the money, it was the type of work they had, and many of them don't actually have to work all that hard, or perform all that well, to make their millions.
There's nothing wrong with being rich. What raises people's ire about the rich are things like some asshole walking in and firing someone on the spot for playing solitaire, or for cutting workers' pensions, while giving themselves a raise, or for getting rich despite incessant failure. Essentially it's about fairness, and before you knee-jerk react, thinking "fair, the only fairness is to make everyone equally poor", I'm talking about fairness in the processes of the system, not guaranteed success (which is just a right-wing straw-man).