It's LGPL (So it's free for commercial projects as well)
I'm sorry to nitpick, but this is an important distinction. You can use GPL code in a commercial project. I don't think that there's any dispute that RHEL is a commercial product. LGPL allows you do use code in proprietary projects.
I wouldn't be all that surprised to see a company like Google make an effort to build a new media company with paid reporters and the like
Why do through all of that when if you wait a few years there'll be a firesale at Fox, CNN and MSNBC? Why spend a billion dollars to get up your own media service when you can pick and choose the good parts from the competition for pennies on the dollar?
I am not advocating that search engines start charging for content. I'm saying that if Murdoch thinks that they're freeloading, they should show him how things really work on the internet.
You know, you almost succeeded in diverting attention away from your initial argument
I made no such attempt.
I have successfully showed that corporations have increased their rights
That much is not in dispute. Corporations do have the use of more rights now than they did 200 years ago. So do women. So do black people.
whether we use the terms 'human rights' 'personal rights' or 'civil liberties' is irrelevant.
Not at all. Words have meanings and their meanings are important.
You do not actually argue as to why it is good for corporations to have more rights. You do not actually argue as to why it was bad that their rights were limited.
Correct. I do not.
By comparing them to slaves, you attempt to engage emotions, not logic.
You're throwing around terms like "evil", "bad" and "good", those are completely subjective. You are appealing to emotion at least as much as I am.
Granting corporations unlimited rights has allowed them to exert enormous amounts of power over each of our daily lives.
First, corporations do not have unlimited rights. Second, who granted these "rights"?
This power comes without any sort of representation, and amounts to tyranny.
Corporations answer to stockholders. You want representation? There's an easy to get it.
Now that I have made my points clear, perhaps you could attempt to discuss them rather than trying to throw the discussion off track with useless debates over semantics.
What I mean is that every right granted to humans is, if applicable, granted to corporations.
Exactly! Human rights are those things that are only applicable to humans.
Political asylum is not a human right, at least, not everyone recognizes that just anyone has the right to it.
Well, not just anyone can have it. Only human beings that are she object of political or religious persecution.
And corporations have citizenship.
Prove it. Do you have a link? Preferably one to a reputable site.
A corporation has a right to free speech. It can be discriminated against. It can hold property. Every right granted to US citizens is granted to corporations.
First, rights are not granted. They are preexisting. Second, can a corporation vote? Can a corporation hold public office? Third, free speech is for persons, not just citizens.
It did not used to be that way, a corporation could not own just any property, like stock in other companies.
A lot of things "used to be". Changes nothing.
How does the corporate form differ from a ponzi scheme in such a way that we allow the one but forbid the other?
For starters, it's possible for every corporate investor to make money.
I say, corporations let the powerful more easily oppress other people
You can say it all you like, that doesn't make it true.
Feel free to request more schooling from me any time,
That's funny. You have to provide "some" before you can provide "more".
Corporations have human rights. Did you even read the court decision I mentioned?
The decision you mentioned said nothing of human rights. The clerk even cleared his choice of words with the Chief Justice before the decision was released. Humans and persons are not the same thing under the law. Can you name a single corporation that has received citizenship? Political asylum?
So you think corporations have a moral right to the same rights as us, after you say they don't have human rights. Make up your mind.
Inability or unwillingness on your part to understand a difference doesn't mean that there is no difference. You keep trying to frame the issue with respect to human rights. There is no such position. Corporations are persons, not humans.
Good job catching my is/aught fallacy, but there was a reason corporations were so limited, they are an unchecked focus of power.
At the time, there was a reason why women and black people were so limited. That doesn't make it any more right.
People can use the corporate for to shield themselves from liability while amassing huge amounts of power over others.
People can do all kinds of nasty things with freedom, that's no reason to deny it to them.
(10) "Person" includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.
Again, it's not a magical special law that I can't cite. It's the US Code.
What have we here? Neo-progressive revisionism and liberal elitism. Not only do you know better because you've read the claptrap at reclaimdemocracy, but words do not mean what they say they mean...I'm going to enjoy taking these apart.
You're deliberately attempting to muddy the waters. I'm not talking about "human rights", one must clearly be a human to have "human rights". There is a difference between a citizen, a person and a human. One must be human to become a citizen not so to become a person. Corporations STILL do not have human rights.
SCC v. SPR did not grant new rights to corporations, the issue had never been raised before. The Constitution doesn't grant rights. The Courts do not grant rights. Rights are preexisting. The fact that you invoke a concept like "human rights" reinforces that point.
Corporations were once limited to what's included in the charter. At one time corporations couldn't own property. That proves nothing. At one time women, a specific type of person, could not own property. At one time human beings, a specific type of person, could be owned as property.
As for my "folk etymology", let's take a look. You say folk, I say race ipsa loquitur.
person c.1225, from O.Fr. persone "human being" (12c., Fr. personne), from L. persona "human being," originally "character in a drama, mask," possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu "mask." This may be related to Gk. Persephone. The use of -person to replace -man in compounds and avoid alleged sexist connotations is first recorded 1971 (in chairperson). Personify first recorded 1727. Personable "pleasing in one's person" is first attested c.1430. In person "by bodily presence" is from 1568. Person-to-person first recorded 1919, originally of telephone calls.
1398, 4"to put (something) into the body or substance of (something else)," from L.L. incorporatus, pp. of incorporare "unite into one body," from L. in- "into" + corpus (gen. corporis) "body" (see corporeal). The legal sense first recorded in Rolls of Parliament, 1461.
Both person meaning "in bodily presence" and incorporate meaning "unite into one body" predate the founding of this Republic.
I should read up on pseudo-populist drivel? You should learn the meaning of the words that you use.
I must disagree with you. Corporations have always been persons. The word incorporate implies that. A person is merely a legal entity. If your neighbor's dog bites you, you can't sue your neighbor's dog, because the dog's not a person. You have to sue your neighbor.
Personhood is what obliges corporations to obey the law and by extension why they have rights.
It is hard to use if you don't have a wireless router and/or network adapters that support WPA2. I have a Belkin F5D7230-4 v1444 router and a Belkin F5D7330 wireless bridge, neither of which support WPA2.
Yeah, it's so much more cost effective to paint your entire house in Aluminum Oxide paint than to buy a new fucking router...
They just want to GET STUFF DONE. They don't know or care about Gigahertz or Terabytes: just as they don't know or care about the kilo-Watt rating of their electric kettle: it's merely an appliance - it works or it doesn't.
And it's bullshit that more often than not that's ok. We'd rightfully laugh at some moron who went to buy an automobile but didn't know if s/he wanted a subcompact, sedan, coupe, minivan, full size van, conversion van, cargo van, pickup truck or SUV. We'd laugh at the moron who didn't know if s/he wanted stick or auto. We'd laugh at the moron who didn't know if s/he wanted gasoline or diesel.
Maybe the IT industry should look inwards on itself and consider how we've failed to educate the public about the technology we make them use.
No one is made to use anything, at least not by the IT community. For example, my grandfather is 71 years old. He knows squat about computers, has no desire to learn and thus will not get one.
What really pisses me off to no end is the face that a LOT of people here just take the cops' word for it whenever they do something this outrageous.
5 cops beat an unarmed motorist to death 14 years ago, one of them was a steroid freak whose fiance "committed suicide" with his service weapon and not a single one of them faced any penalty. The steroid freak was actually promoted.
John Charo lied about the conditions under which he shot a suspect. The suspect was a dirtbag, he had stolen a car and had lead the police on a chase. He crashed the stolen car and officer Charmo shot him. No penalty faced by officer Charmo.
Jeffrey Cooperstein killed an unarmed suspect and in the aftermath it was determined that he published a cop-fetish website where he talked about squashing suspects like grapes. He was acquitted.
All of that bullshit about the health care costs of smoking or obesity or drug use is just a pretext. They want to go after people's sources of pleasure. It's only a matter of time before we hear someone talk about taxing condoms. It'll be framed as a necessity because of the health care costs of STDs, but the reality is that they know how much people enjoy sex.
Anything they want to regulate and tax is something that people enjoy.
As far as I can tell, they're just a bunch of punks who are causing damage and rioting for the sake of causing damage and rioting under the false pretense of standing up for something.
I'm actually in Pittsburgh. Perhaps 8-9 miles away from where these events occurred. What is missing is that many of the people who have been subjected to this are innocent observers. Sound cannons and OC canisters don't discriminate between the people who are actually causing a problem and the people who are just protesting and not causing any damage.
Children who are born to mothers that are not married tend to have less complete support systems and fewer financial resources. Even the best single mother can only do so much in 24 hours. She can't do it all. As a result the children can suffer. Children that grow up with parents who have a healthy relationship have an advantage of those who don't.
There's less social stigma attached to it today, but the results are the same.
And they're the first to bitch when the $OFFSHORE_NATION coders have problems understanding the initial design of the application.
They're also the first ones to bitch when the project is going nowhere in the hands of the $OFFSHORE_NATION coders and they decide to bring it back to the US but the few people who managed to avoid the ax on the first go round take longer than 48 hours to decipher the lunacy that the $OFFSHORE_NATION coders did to their codebase.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. I didn't properly explain the difference.
LK
It's LGPL (So it's free for commercial projects as well)
I'm sorry to nitpick, but this is an important distinction. You can use GPL code in a commercial project. I don't think that there's any dispute that RHEL is a commercial product. LGPL allows you do use code in proprietary projects.
LK
I wouldn't be all that surprised to see a company like Google make an effort to build a new media company with paid reporters and the like
Why do through all of that when if you wait a few years there'll be a firesale at Fox, CNN and MSNBC? Why spend a billion dollars to get up your own media service when you can pick and choose the good parts from the competition for pennies on the dollar?
LK
I am not advocating that search engines start charging for content. I'm saying that if Murdoch thinks that they're freeloading, they should show him how things really work on the internet.
LK
Google should stop indexing his content. When his traffic falls 50% overnight he'll be offering to pay them.
LK
You know, you almost succeeded in diverting attention away from your initial argument
I made no such attempt.
I have successfully showed that corporations have increased their rights
That much is not in dispute. Corporations do have the use of more rights now than they did 200 years ago. So do women. So do black people.
whether we use the terms 'human rights' 'personal rights' or 'civil liberties' is irrelevant.
Not at all. Words have meanings and their meanings are important.
You do not actually argue as to why it is good for corporations to have more rights. You do not actually argue as to why it was bad that their rights were limited.
Correct. I do not.
By comparing them to slaves, you attempt to engage emotions, not logic.
You're throwing around terms like "evil", "bad" and "good", those are completely subjective. You are appealing to emotion at least as much as I am.
Granting corporations unlimited rights has allowed them to exert enormous amounts of power over each of our daily lives.
First, corporations do not have unlimited rights. Second, who granted these "rights"?
This power comes without any sort of representation, and amounts to tyranny.
Corporations answer to stockholders. You want representation? There's an easy to get it.
Now that I have made my points clear, perhaps you could attempt to discuss them rather than trying to throw the discussion off track with useless debates over semantics.
Or IOW, give you a change to win for once.
LK
What I mean is that every right granted to humans is, if applicable, granted to corporations.
Exactly! Human rights are those things that are only applicable to humans.
Political asylum is not a human right, at least, not everyone recognizes that just anyone has the right to it.
Well, not just anyone can have it. Only human beings that are she object of political or religious persecution.
And corporations have citizenship.
Prove it. Do you have a link? Preferably one to a reputable site.
A corporation has a right to free speech. It can be discriminated against. It can hold property. Every right granted to US citizens is granted to corporations.
First, rights are not granted. They are preexisting. Second, can a corporation vote? Can a corporation hold public office? Third, free speech is for persons, not just citizens.
It did not used to be that way, a corporation could not own just any property, like stock in other companies.
A lot of things "used to be". Changes nothing.
How does the corporate form differ from a ponzi scheme in such a way that we allow the one but forbid the other?
For starters, it's possible for every corporate investor to make money.
I say, corporations let the powerful more easily oppress other people
You can say it all you like, that doesn't make it true.
Feel free to request more schooling from me any time,
That's funny. You have to provide "some" before you can provide "more".
LK
Corporations have human rights. Did you even read the court decision I mentioned?
The decision you mentioned said nothing of human rights. The clerk even cleared his choice of words with the Chief Justice before the decision was released. Humans and persons are not the same thing under the law. Can you name a single corporation that has received citizenship? Political asylum?
So you think corporations have a moral right to the same rights as us, after you say they don't have human rights. Make up your mind.
Inability or unwillingness on your part to understand a difference doesn't mean that there is no difference. You keep trying to frame the issue with respect to human rights. There is no such position. Corporations are persons, not humans.
Good job catching my is/aught fallacy, but there was a reason corporations were so limited, they are an unchecked focus of power.
At the time, there was a reason why women and black people were so limited. That doesn't make it any more right.
People can use the corporate for to shield themselves from liability while amassing huge amounts of power over others.
People can do all kinds of nasty things with freedom, that's no reason to deny it to them.
A group is not a person, plain and simple.
Physically? No. Legally? Sometimes.
Does it hurt when you fail that badly?
I'll let you know if and when that happens.
LK
Some tightly-knit families who pool resources can also operate like corporate entities.
It's the ability and willingness to do so is what makes them powerful families.
It's aggregate wealth that gives them power, not some magical special laws that so many people seem to believe exist, but cannot cite.
How about this?
Is the US Code a good enough citation?
Again, it's not a magical special law that I can't cite. It's the US Code.
LK
What have we here? Neo-progressive revisionism and liberal elitism. Not only do you know better because you've read the claptrap at reclaimdemocracy, but words do not mean what they say they mean...I'm going to enjoy taking these apart.
You're deliberately attempting to muddy the waters. I'm not talking about "human rights", one must clearly be a human to have "human rights". There is a difference between a citizen, a person and a human. One must be human to become a citizen not so to become a person. Corporations STILL do not have human rights.
SCC v. SPR did not grant new rights to corporations, the issue had never been raised before. The Constitution doesn't grant rights. The Courts do not grant rights. Rights are preexisting. The fact that you invoke a concept like "human rights" reinforces that point.
Corporations were once limited to what's included in the charter. At one time corporations couldn't own property. That proves nothing. At one time women, a specific type of person, could not own property. At one time human beings, a specific type of person, could be owned as property.
As for my "folk etymology", let's take a look. You say folk, I say race ipsa loquitur.
c.1225, from O.Fr. persone "human being" (12c., Fr. personne), from L. persona "human being," originally "character in a drama, mask," possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu "mask." This may be related to Gk. Persephone. The use of -person to replace -man in compounds and avoid alleged sexist connotations is first recorded 1971 (in chairperson). Personify first recorded 1727. Personable "pleasing in one's person" is first attested c.1430. In person "by bodily presence" is from 1568. Person-to-person first recorded 1919, originally of telephone calls.
Both person meaning "in bodily presence" and incorporate meaning "unite into one body" predate the founding of this Republic.
I should read up on pseudo-populist drivel? You should learn the meaning of the words that you use.
LK
I must disagree with you. Corporations have always been persons. The word incorporate implies that. A person is merely a legal entity. If your neighbor's dog bites you, you can't sue your neighbor's dog, because the dog's not a person. You have to sue your neighbor.
Personhood is what obliges corporations to obey the law and by extension why they have rights.
LK
Microsoft used to make NT for PPC.
LK
I would guess that most people who own a Mac just got tired of dealing with all the issues of the WinTel dynasty.
They could have gone to Lintel without the price premium.
LK
No one outside the jurisdiction need display it. My laws don't apply to your citizens unless they want to do business in my country.
EXACTLY!
LK
And how will you compel anyone outside of the jurisdiction of this law to display such a disclaimer?
How do they expect to enforce this law on companies that produce software outside of the US?
Apparently they still don't understand how this internet thing works.
LK
It is hard to use if you don't have a wireless router and/or network adapters that support WPA2. I have a Belkin F5D7230-4 v1444 router and a Belkin F5D7330 wireless bridge, neither of which support WPA2.
Yeah, it's so much more cost effective to paint your entire house in Aluminum Oxide paint than to buy a new fucking router...
You may hate it, as I do, but THAT'S YOUR JOB. Get over it. Don't like it? Get a new one.
Not quite. My job is to give the client what they ask for; more precisely, what they pay for. What they want is irrelevant.
LK
They just want to GET STUFF DONE. They don't know or care about Gigahertz or Terabytes: just as they don't know or care about the kilo-Watt rating of their electric kettle: it's merely an appliance - it works or it doesn't.
And it's bullshit that more often than not that's ok. We'd rightfully laugh at some moron who went to buy an automobile but didn't know if s/he wanted a subcompact, sedan, coupe, minivan, full size van, conversion van, cargo van, pickup truck or SUV. We'd laugh at the moron who didn't know if s/he wanted stick or auto. We'd laugh at the moron who didn't know if s/he wanted gasoline or diesel.
Maybe the IT industry should look inwards on itself and consider how we've failed to educate the public about the technology we make them use.
No one is made to use anything, at least not by the IT community. For example, my grandfather is 71 years old. He knows squat about computers, has no desire to learn and thus will not get one.
LK
What really pisses me off to no end is the face that a LOT of people here just take the cops' word for it whenever they do something this outrageous.
5 cops beat an unarmed motorist to death 14 years ago, one of them was a steroid freak whose fiance "committed suicide" with his service weapon and not a single one of them faced any penalty. The steroid freak was actually promoted.
John Charo lied about the conditions under which he shot a suspect. The suspect was a dirtbag, he had stolen a car and had lead the police on a chase. He crashed the stolen car and officer Charmo shot him. No penalty faced by officer Charmo.
Jeffrey Cooperstein killed an unarmed suspect and in the aftermath it was determined that he published a cop-fetish website where he talked about squashing suspects like grapes. He was acquitted.
Fuck every last one of them.
LK
All of that bullshit about the health care costs of smoking or obesity or drug use is just a pretext. They want to go after people's sources of pleasure. It's only a matter of time before we hear someone talk about taxing condoms. It'll be framed as a necessity because of the health care costs of STDs, but the reality is that they know how much people enjoy sex.
Anything they want to regulate and tax is something that people enjoy.
LK
I wish I still had mod points. That's great!
LK
As far as I can tell, they're just a bunch of punks who are causing damage and rioting for the sake of causing damage and rioting under the false pretense of standing up for something.
I'm actually in Pittsburgh. Perhaps 8-9 miles away from where these events occurred. What is missing is that many of the people who have been subjected to this are innocent observers. Sound cannons and OC canisters don't discriminate between the people who are actually causing a problem and the people who are just protesting and not causing any damage.
LK
Children who are born to mothers that are not married tend to have less complete support systems and fewer financial resources. Even the best single mother can only do so much in 24 hours. She can't do it all. As a result the children can suffer. Children that grow up with parents who have a healthy relationship have an advantage of those who don't.
There's less social stigma attached to it today, but the results are the same.
LK
And they're the first to bitch when the $OFFSHORE_NATION coders have problems understanding the initial design of the application.
They're also the first ones to bitch when the project is going nowhere in the hands of the $OFFSHORE_NATION coders and they decide to bring it back to the US but the few people who managed to avoid the ax on the first go round take longer than 48 hours to decipher the lunacy that the $OFFSHORE_NATION coders did to their codebase.
LK