Maybe I misinterpreted your original reply. You said
Who cares what you think I should do with my code or your code, I bought (downloaded) it, I should be able to do what ever I want with it. Right?
The question sounds rhetorical, but I'll answer it as if it wasn't. My answer would be "yes, that's fine" with one priviso. That priviso is that I would find it fine in a world without copyright. So long as copyright exists, the only license I'm going to support is the GPL, since it goes against the very ideals of copyright. Furthermore, I'm going to use the value system surrounding copyright to restrict the options available to those that support it.
Think about the reasons you'd want to violate the GPL. Most such violations occur because the violater wants to make money under the copyright value system. The violater will prevent others receiving his derivative work from exercising the same rights he exercised. Another reason might be because the violater has something to hide. Spyware would be an example. In any case, as long as there is a large profit motive for the person making a GPL derivative work to sell it under a non-open license, I'll admonish those that do so.
If there were no copyright, it wouldn't be so big a deal. I could theoretically reverse engineer any binary released (think kazaa-lite), and in any case there would be no copyright owner, so I couldn't be restricted from re-distributing any software I received.
Some may release their code under the GPL with that understanding. But I don't support the GPL because it protects the authors' rights. I support the GPL because it uses the restrictions of copyright against the entities that stand to gain the most from these restrictions.
Except that the only reason the GPL has any teeth is BECAUSE of copyright.
This is true.
If you get rid of copyright, then how can you distribute free code and ensure that the users of the code release their changes back to the community?
You can't.
GPL was created because Stallman was a programmer who did not believe in copyright. If you are such a person, no one has a right to distribute the code you give them, unless you explicitly grant them this right. Now, Stallman could have released his code under BSD or public domain. But he went one better. By GPLing his code, he created the root of a poison tree that no proprietary software vendor could build upon. The GPL is only necessary because of copyright. Destroying copyright is better than protecting the GPL.
Violating the GPL is wrong because doing so unfairly restricts users' freedoms. Breaking DRM is moral because it enhances users' freedoms.
You should realize that the GPL wasn't created with a respect for the current copyright law. Rather, it was entirely the reverse. If copyright goes away, Stallman will be satisfied. Until that time, the GPL is a stop-gap measure.
In short, there's no inconsistency in supporting "DVD Jon" and supporting the GPL. You could say that one or the other is wrong for its own reasons, but that wouldn't be an inconsistency, which is what you're clearly implying.
If I'm doing software RAID-0, does this do XOR? If not, what other penalties might a software RAID-0 have over a hardware implementation? I'm actually curious as I plan to set up a software RAID-0 myself within a week or two.
But in this case, Eolas is the enemy of everyone. If Microsoft does well here, it's not a victory so much for Microsoft as it is for everyone. I wish them luck.
Sometimes relativism is the best characterization of various human values. Which ice cream flavor is the best? Is there a fact of the matter that says that, for example, chocolate must be the best for everyone, and that those who enjoy other flavors more are inferior? I doubt it.
It seems sensible to make the same characterization of literature. If one chooses to read and/or write blogs, so much the better for them. Maybe you don't like such people, just as you don't like those that (suppose) listen to country music. But that hardly makes such a valuation absolute.
Some valuations deserve to be absolute. Which people it is permissible to kill, or take liberty from (imprison). But which literature one chooses to read is not one of these valuations.
Why are you scared? This is free software. If Google tries to subvert the aim of FireFox, users can just fork it and take the development in a different direction. Open software is held together by the community behind it. If you try to act counter to that community, the community, and thus the software, will leave you behind. The worst that happens is that a developer is lost to the interests of a particular corporation and no longer works on the main branch of FireFox. But that seems unlikely to me, as Google knows trying to subvert FireFox to be GoogleFox or whatever would be counterproductive. All they really want, I imagine, is an alternative to IE so that users can choose Google without it being integrated like MSN Search is in IE.
I think you have an overly pessimistic view of human nature. I only do what I desire to do, but does my desire make it selfish? If I desire to help the poor, is that selfish? If it is, then calling something "selfish" is empty.
Even allowing that Google may have a monetary incentive to hire a chief Mozilla developer, I don't see what the problem is. At this point, Google needs an alternative browser to keep Microsoft in check. Supporters of Free Software also desire that IE marketshare should drop, and that more open alternatives (such as FireFox) should take the slack. The interests of a "selfish" corporation and Free Software hippies are aligned.
There's no guarantee that Google won't turn "evil" in the future. But let's judge them on things they have done, rather than what they might do.
Please note that I am not totally pro-Google. I have issues with their acquiescence to censorship of totalitarian regimes. But this action doesn't bother me, and I don't see why it should.
I don't think Google wants or needs a browser. What they do need though is to keep MS honest. It is incredibly easy for MS to integrate MSN search with their web browser. If MS wants people using IE to also use MSN search, all they have to do is not be so incredibly bad that people look elsewhere. The criterion is a bit different if MS is trying to get FireFox users to use MSN search. Then they actually have to be better than everyone else. Google might not be able to beat MS on the first criterion, but they can certainly beat MS on merit.
So the more FireFox users there are, the more Google users there are. I don't see anything mysterious about this move by Google. It's really in their financial interest, and not just because of the PR.
With that respect I believe comes the right to trump an untested fool on the subject. A 13 year old kid should not be considered a equally valuable source on carpentry as a carpenter with 30 years experience.
As long as everyone agrees who the expert is, it's not a problem. But I'm starting from a position with persistent disagreement between the experts and laypeople. If two parties can't agree on who the expert is, then "expertise" is a failed criterion of merit.
It is i think your views on knowledge that are a bit naive. To assume that fools or just ignorant people possess equally viable knowledge as professionals and scholars is disgustingly naive.
Epistemologists consider knowledge, justification, and their relation to truth at the most abstract level possible. To just start such a position with "Well, here are the experts, we should trust them" is pretty laughable.
That said, there are social institutions created precisely for creating experts on various matters, as I alluded to and you reiterated. But wikipedia isn't a meritocracy. It never was. It's closer to a democracy, and shares all the virtues and vices of such systems.
If you want a meritocracy, look elsewhere. There are plenty of meritocracies in encyclopedia format, such as Stanford's Philosophical Encyclopedia. I just don't see why wikipedia has to subvert its democratic aims to conform to a meritocratic ideals. The project doesn't owe you anything. It can do as it pleases.
There are plenty of elistist encyclopedia publications out there for people that want to "respect the experts and authorities". Pick your favorite pre-net era encyclopedia, and contribute to that. If you want respect for your authority or expertise.
Larry Sanger may be an epistemologist, but his views on knowledge and its justification seem a bit naive. Who determines who the "experts" and "authorities" are? It can't be these same people, that would just beg the question. Or perhaps its the social structures already created that mold and promote expertise. But then why even make wikipedia in the first place? Wikipedia is not a reflection of these social structures, and that was intentional from the very beginning. It's not a mistake to be rectified.
Go ahead, fork the project. It was founded so that those unhappy with its direction could fork it. Just like Linux. Make your own elitist version. Just don't expect any tears from me.
Because it's not firefox and GOD FORBID you'd have to like pay money for software.
I frequently pay for software. I rarely pay for proprietary software. Free software isn't about money.
Not to mention that nearly every single feature that makes firefox what it is (tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, mouse gestures, lightweight interface) was pioneered by Opera first.
I care less about who had it first than who has it now.
Suprnova wasn't hosting the material, and that clause seems to apply only to those servers which actually contain illegal material. If merely pointing to illegal material was itself illegal, then every site mentioning suprnova.org (before it was shut down) would be guilty of vicarious infringement.
Note that 2600 was at a point prevented from doing exactly this. But preventing people from making links to illegal materials/activities seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
I think you're right. I believe the comparison I was remembering was a celeron 400Mhz. Sticking to what I'm certain of, I've a 500Mhz PIII, and it noticably outperforms my C3 even with a slower memory architecture and less total RAM.
I've heard the battery life on these Balance are around 90 minutes. What can I expect from a refurbished P3 IBM thinkpad?
I can't speak to the battery life of specific models. It varies greatly. But it certainly helps to start with a lower power processor. After that, it's a trade-off between weight and battery life.
Battery life is very important, but equally so is weight. Many people buy laptops just looking at things like processor speed and RAM, without paying attention to the weight. Then they have a 9 pound clunker that's too unweildy to take to the library or class. I'd consider anything over 5 pounds unportable, but the exact weight varies by person.
As for thinkpads, I've had one and found the "rubber nipple" on mine nearly unbearable to use. Touchpads are much better. But again, that may be personal preference speaking. Good luck on your shopping.
[I posted this elsewhere, but it's relevant here too.]
This is a bad choice. I have a C3 933Mhz processor. It performs roughly equivalent to a 300Mhz PIII. Not only this, but it is extremely hot. The C3 was supposed to be cool, but this is one of the hottest laptops I've used. I haven't objectively measured it with a thermistor yet, but the external temp seems about 55 C to 60 C. If I put the laptop on my bare chest it leaves red marks. It may be because the laptop is so thin, or maybe the HSF construction is shoddy.
The PIII/M is cool, and embarrasses the C3 in terms of performance. This is partly due to C3 being a bad processor, but also largely due to PIII/M being a good processor. In fact, if I was getting an x86 notebook, I wouldn't accept anything except a PIII. I've personally experienced Athlon notebooks, P4 notebooks, and VIA notebooks, and can tell that they are all inferior. I can't speak to Transmeta or Apple branded notebooks.
If this C3 notebook is at all appealing to you, my advice is to get an old PIII off ebay or reburbished from one of many dealers. You'll pay the same price and get a much higher performing, cooler laptop.
The costs involved in getting a merchant account are reasonably large, too much for small ebay sellers and companies with small turnovers. Paypal is very cost effective in these cases (mainly due to no gateway fees).
IIRC, it is something like $700 USD yearly for each of Mastercard and Visa to get a merchant account and accept credit payments. I was looking into selling file hosting bandwidth, and seeing what it would take to get payment services set up. But the initial cost is just too high for a small time operation like I was planning. I don't like paypal, but it was pretty much that or nothing.
If you only buy from people that take credit card payments directly, you'll end up paying for that privilege.
Try not to confuse your bias with womens choices in future.
All discrimination is based on people's choices. And despite what you say, not all discrimination is bad. For example, there is no recognized right to have sex, so any consideration of taste in partners is acceptable. This is opposed to, say, choosing employees or load applicants based on race or gender. What I think you are getting at is that it is wrong to deny a right, but ok to deny a privilege. But while there is a point to be made, you'd do better to avoid ad hominems in the future.
I think few are as apathetic as you make them out to be. I think it would be helpful to make a parallel to jury duty. Many would prefer to avoid jury duty. Yet, the choice is not their own. It is a duty after all. And once someone has been chosen to serve on a jury, rarely do they just pick a verdict at random. So here we see where people deliberate and make the best decision they can even though they were loath to participate in the process in the first place. I see no reason voting cannot be the same way.
For example, I used to enjoy debates on newsgroups, but last I checked (several years ago), they were just full of trash. The topics I was interested in had been largely abandoned by those that were actually knowledgable in the fields due in great part to this.
Another example is Yahoo message boards. Here we see what the lack of pretty much any moderation entails. Spam infested, crapflood infested, it's pretty difficult to get any meaningful discussion there.
I think what will happen is that there will be heavier moderation and more stringent entrance requirements for various online forums. The Internet will still function, it just won't be as open as it once was.
It seemed like the questions were leading, but in the opposite direction. I ended up with 7% agreement with Bush.
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) (i.e., writing my own name on the ballot) 2. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (81%) 3. Cobb, David - Green Party (78%) 4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (78%) 5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (75%) 6. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (72%) 7. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (66%) 8. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (65%) 9. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (64%) 10. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (58%) 11. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (56%) 12. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (56%) 13. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (52%) 14. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (43%) 15. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (37%) 16. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (22%) 17. Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural Law (19%) 18. Bush, President George W. - Republican (7%)
Slashdot Mirror
Think about the reasons you'd want to violate the GPL. Most such violations occur because the violater wants to make money under the copyright value system. The violater will prevent others receiving his derivative work from exercising the same rights he exercised. Another reason might be because the violater has something to hide. Spyware would be an example. In any case, as long as there is a large profit motive for the person making a GPL derivative work to sell it under a non-open license, I'll admonish those that do so.
If there were no copyright, it wouldn't be so big a deal. I could theoretically reverse engineer any binary released (think kazaa-lite), and in any case there would be no copyright owner, so I couldn't be restricted from re-distributing any software I received.
Some may release their code under the GPL with that understanding. But I don't support the GPL because it protects the authors' rights. I support the GPL because it uses the restrictions of copyright against the entities that stand to gain the most from these restrictions.
GPL was created because Stallman was a programmer who did not believe in copyright. If you are such a person, no one has a right to distribute the code you give them, unless you explicitly grant them this right. Now, Stallman could have released his code under BSD or public domain. But he went one better. By GPLing his code, he created the root of a poison tree that no proprietary software vendor could build upon. The GPL is only necessary because of copyright. Destroying copyright is better than protecting the GPL.
Violating the GPL is wrong because doing so unfairly restricts users' freedoms. Breaking DRM is moral because it enhances users' freedoms.
You should realize that the GPL wasn't created with a respect for the current copyright law. Rather, it was entirely the reverse. If copyright goes away, Stallman will be satisfied. Until that time, the GPL is a stop-gap measure.
In short, there's no inconsistency in supporting "DVD Jon" and supporting the GPL. You could say that one or the other is wrong for its own reasons, but that wouldn't be an inconsistency, which is what you're clearly implying.
If I'm doing software RAID-0, does this do XOR? If not, what other penalties might a software RAID-0 have over a hardware implementation? I'm actually curious as I plan to set up a software RAID-0 myself within a week or two.
But in this case, Eolas is the enemy of everyone. If Microsoft does well here, it's not a victory so much for Microsoft as it is for everyone. I wish them luck.
Sometimes relativism is the best characterization of various human values. Which ice cream flavor is the best? Is there a fact of the matter that says that, for example, chocolate must be the best for everyone, and that those who enjoy other flavors more are inferior? I doubt it.
It seems sensible to make the same characterization of literature. If one chooses to read and/or write blogs, so much the better for them. Maybe you don't like such people, just as you don't like those that (suppose) listen to country music. But that hardly makes such a valuation absolute.
Some valuations deserve to be absolute. Which people it is permissible to kill, or take liberty from (imprison). But which literature one chooses to read is not one of these valuations.
Why are you scared? This is free software. If Google tries to subvert the aim of FireFox, users can just fork it and take the development in a different direction. Open software is held together by the community behind it. If you try to act counter to that community, the community, and thus the software, will leave you behind. The worst that happens is that a developer is lost to the interests of a particular corporation and no longer works on the main branch of FireFox. But that seems unlikely to me, as Google knows trying to subvert FireFox to be GoogleFox or whatever would be counterproductive. All they really want, I imagine, is an alternative to IE so that users can choose Google without it being integrated like MSN Search is in IE.
I think you have an overly pessimistic view of human nature. I only do what I desire to do, but does my desire make it selfish? If I desire to help the poor, is that selfish? If it is, then calling something "selfish" is empty.
Even allowing that Google may have a monetary incentive to hire a chief Mozilla developer, I don't see what the problem is. At this point, Google needs an alternative browser to keep Microsoft in check. Supporters of Free Software also desire that IE marketshare should drop, and that more open alternatives (such as FireFox) should take the slack. The interests of a "selfish" corporation and Free Software hippies are aligned.
There's no guarantee that Google won't turn "evil" in the future. But let's judge them on things they have done, rather than what they might do.
Please note that I am not totally pro-Google. I have issues with their acquiescence to censorship of totalitarian regimes. But this action doesn't bother me, and I don't see why it should.
So the more FireFox users there are, the more Google users there are. I don't see anything mysterious about this move by Google. It's really in their financial interest, and not just because of the PR.
Epistemologists consider knowledge, justification, and their relation to truth at the most abstract level possible. To just start such a position with "Well, here are the experts, we should trust them" is pretty laughable.
That said, there are social institutions created precisely for creating experts on various matters, as I alluded to and you reiterated. But wikipedia isn't a meritocracy. It never was. It's closer to a democracy, and shares all the virtues and vices of such systems.
If you want a meritocracy, look elsewhere. There are plenty of meritocracies in encyclopedia format, such as Stanford's Philosophical Encyclopedia. I just don't see why wikipedia has to subvert its democratic aims to conform to a meritocratic ideals. The project doesn't owe you anything. It can do as it pleases.
There are plenty of elistist encyclopedia publications out there for people that want to "respect the experts and authorities". Pick your favorite pre-net era encyclopedia, and contribute to that. If you want respect for your authority or expertise.
Larry Sanger may be an epistemologist, but his views on knowledge and its justification seem a bit naive. Who determines who the "experts" and "authorities" are? It can't be these same people, that would just beg the question. Or perhaps its the social structures already created that mold and promote expertise. But then why even make wikipedia in the first place? Wikipedia is not a reflection of these social structures, and that was intentional from the very beginning. It's not a mistake to be rectified.
Go ahead, fork the project. It was founded so that those unhappy with its direction could fork it. Just like Linux. Make your own elitist version. Just don't expect any tears from me.
I care less about who had it first than who has it now.
Suprnova wasn't hosting the material, and that clause seems to apply only to those servers which actually contain illegal material. If merely pointing to illegal material was itself illegal, then every site mentioning suprnova.org (before it was shut down) would be guilty of vicarious infringement.
Note that 2600 was at a point prevented from doing exactly this. But preventing people from making links to illegal materials/activities seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
I think you're right. I believe the comparison I was remembering was a celeron 400Mhz. Sticking to what I'm certain of, I've a 500Mhz PIII, and it noticably outperforms my C3 even with a slower memory architecture and less total RAM.
Battery life is very important, but equally so is weight. Many people buy laptops just looking at things like processor speed and RAM, without paying attention to the weight. Then they have a 9 pound clunker that's too unweildy to take to the library or class. I'd consider anything over 5 pounds unportable, but the exact weight varies by person.
As for thinkpads, I've had one and found the "rubber nipple" on mine nearly unbearable to use. Touchpads are much better. But again, that may be personal preference speaking. Good luck on your shopping.
[I posted this elsewhere, but it's relevant here too.]
This is a bad choice. I have a C3 933Mhz processor. It performs roughly equivalent to a 300Mhz PIII. Not only this, but it is extremely hot. The C3 was supposed to be cool, but this is one of the hottest laptops I've used. I haven't objectively measured it with a thermistor yet, but the external temp seems about 55 C to 60 C. If I put the laptop on my bare chest it leaves red marks. It may be because the laptop is so thin, or maybe the HSF construction is shoddy.
The PIII/M is cool, and embarrasses the C3 in terms of performance. This is partly due to C3 being a bad processor, but also largely due to PIII/M being a good processor. In fact, if I was getting an x86 notebook, I wouldn't accept anything except a PIII. I've personally experienced Athlon notebooks, P4 notebooks, and VIA notebooks, and can tell that they are all inferior. I can't speak to Transmeta or Apple branded notebooks.
If this C3 notebook is at all appealing to you, my advice is to get an old PIII off ebay or reburbished from one of many dealers. You'll pay the same price and get a much higher performing, cooler laptop.
If you only buy from people that take credit card payments directly, you'll end up paying for that privilege.
I think few are as apathetic as you make them out to be. I think it would be helpful to make a parallel to jury duty. Many would prefer to avoid jury duty. Yet, the choice is not their own. It is a duty after all. And once someone has been chosen to serve on a jury, rarely do they just pick a verdict at random. So here we see where people deliberate and make the best decision they can even though they were loath to participate in the process in the first place. I see no reason voting cannot be the same way.
Just make voting mandatory, as many Western nations already do. Voting isn't just a right, it's a duty.
For example, I used to enjoy debates on newsgroups, but last I checked (several years ago), they were just full of trash. The topics I was interested in had been largely abandoned by those that were actually knowledgable in the fields due in great part to this.
Another example is Yahoo message boards. Here we see what the lack of pretty much any moderation entails. Spam infested, crapflood infested, it's pretty difficult to get any meaningful discussion there.
I think what will happen is that there will be heavier moderation and more stringent entrance requirements for various online forums. The Internet will still function, it just won't be as open as it once was.
It seemed like the questions were leading, but in the opposite direction. I ended up with 7% agreement with Bush.
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) (i.e., writing my own name on the ballot)
2. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (81%)
3. Cobb, David - Green Party (78%)
4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (78%)
5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (75%)
6. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (72%)
7. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (66%)
8. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (65%)
9. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (64%)
10. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (58%)
11. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (56%)
12. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (56%)
13. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (52%)
14. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (43%)
15. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (37%)
16. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (22%)
17. Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural Law (19%)
18. Bush, President George W. - Republican (7%)