The question isn't about accepting the terms of Copyright Law -- it's about accepting the terms of the License which is what determines that I can develop with it as long as I distribute the source.
The Copyright and the License are two separate legal documents. In the case of the GPL, Copyright governs all use of the software, including use and development. But the GPL is a License which only applies to how developers use the source code.
That is what the fellow says in the article, isn't it?
I was wondering about this myself. Usually, for "licensed" software, the license is displayed in front of you in some way -- either as a dialog box before you install or run it the first time, or as a document outside of the physical software distribution medium -- and clicking "OK" or opening the package implies compliance with the license. There's an action implied.
But what action implies agreement with the GPL? Where do I "sign" before I implement the GPL'ed code in my project?
The article you mention may be right, that there is a problem here. Perhaps you could give the volume, issue, and page number of the article?
Maybe (I don't see where Paul explains why the Resurrection is necessary for us to be saved, but I just skimmed the text -- he probably does, only elsewhere)...
But that's no excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because he's wrong on one point doesn't make the entirety of it false. More importantly, what's really missing is that people nowadays have accepted interpretations of scripture without taking the effort to think about them. We've been doing this for too long. And if nothing else, this is a book about thought, and about questioning whether what we believe is really necessary, the only way to read Scripture, or even in agreement with scripture.
If the only thing the Bishop does is cause us to question our beliefs and come back and say that he's wrong on every point after thinking and analyzing his points thoroughly and honestly (which is harder than it sounds), the book still has enormous value.
My phone's batteries typically last over a week even when I leave it on all week long, but then, battery life was one of my main concerns when I was looking for a phone.
"It's difficult to argue price for desktop software. For all intents and purposes, Microsoftware is every bit as free as OSS software. Piracy has contributed to the MS success story enormously."
Yes, but as Microsoft begins to clamp down on licensing violations, price is suddenly going to become a factor. In a sense, these viable free alternatives have arrived with perfect timing, because now people have someplace else to go.
Now you and I both know that KOffice isn't nearly as polished and powerful as MS Office is (and Office XP is going to be).
But the thing is, when you look at how far KOffice has come in how little time, it becomes apparent that it's just a matter of time before it catches up and, provided its leadership isn't content to be "as good as" Office, surpasses Office in features and functionality.
It's the sheer rate of change and speed of development of KOffice that amazes me. In a couple of years, this free alternative to Office will most likely be at least as powerful as MSFT's product, except that it will cost nothing.
Office software is becoming like text editors and browser software: It's something you don't expect to pay for. And if MSFT continues to try to charge people for it, people will move over to the alternatives.
No, it ain't there yet, but look at where it was and where it is now. Look at how short the time was for it to get here.
And just think. Just a few months ago, people were saying that Linux would never be a viable desktop OS. A few who have their heads in the sand still say it. But it is viable now! Even my Dad, who usually lacks the time to learn anything more complicated than instructions written on a sheet of paper that he follows to the letter, could install and get running with KDE under RedHat.
I think he's simply missed the point: That "orthodox" Christianity is no longer truly orthodox. That there's a lot of baggage with "orthodox" Christianity that, when held up to scrutiny and logical thought, doesn't really fit, or is far less important than it's been made out to be.
Take the Virgin Birth. If this were proven to be false, it wouldn't affect my belief that Jesus is the Christ one iota. I certainly believe that God is capable of making a virgin become pregnant. I also believe that God can make a bastard son the Christ. The former version sounds more impressive, but who really needs it?
It never ceases to amaze me how those who claim to be most christian, often display the most contrary (to the actual teachings of christ) behaviour. This is what drove me away.
I remember a few years ago, when my mother was an Elder at her local Presbyterian church. This lasted until the more fundamentalist elements of the church organized and essentially staged a takeover of the church leadership, to ensure that their vision of the Bible was the one the church espoused, causing my family and others to be all but ostracized. And my hometown church wasn't alone; across the country, fundamentalist Christians have done the same thing in moderate and liberal churches, since no views are compatible with their mindsets but their own.
Anyhow... I tend to go on about this since it's pretty dear to my heart, but it's true. Modern Christian fundamentalists really are the new Pharisees.
He is not trying to run a society closer to the exact interpretation of the Muslim religion. Contraversially, he is funding the training of a new militant generation of soldiers who dispise any religion other than their grossly missinterpreted version.
And this is different from extreme fundamentalist Christians in this country how, exactly?
Any white Christian who starts seeing those of other ethnicities or religions as "Them" is not only a poor excuse for a Christian, but ought to be considered as bad as the terrorists themselves.
Speaking as a white Christian...bingo. You just hit the nail on the head. In fact, it's that very attitude that allowed these terrorists to believe that what they were doing was somehow God's Will.
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all filled with references to people who, though they weren't Official Churchgoing Believers, represented God's will better than the average Believer. And an ongoing theme in both the Talmud and the Bible (I can't speak for the Koran, although I've been told Mohammed's teachings are very tolerant of other religions) is the failure of church leaders.
It's ironic. All of these religions which these misguided fundamentalist-whacko "leaders" (such as Osama Bin Laden and Jerry Falwell) supposedly follow condemn the most the Bin Ladens and Falwells of the world, who use God's Name to mislead people, or cause people to commit terrible atrocities.
Bingo. This is the first response to get it right.
If we sacrifice the civil liberties we enjoy as Americans to fight terrorism, even if we destroy every terrorist to a man, they will have won. This is a country based on ideals. If we give up those ideals, we are destroyed utterly, even if the institutions and individuals that make up the country remain.
We're at war. But this is what we're at war against: Ourselves.
By nightfall, CNN, MSNBC and the networks were moving away from the dramatic video and the indescribable scenes of wreckage and carnage and calling in the policy wonks and propellerheads who hide out in Washington caves until something like this happens. The focal point of all the airtime then shifted from the devastation in New York to the parsing and analyzing of the political, governmental and intelligence communities. For future reference, that may be a good time to turn off the tube and get online, the medium of individual stories, feelings and experiences.
On the one hand, I agree with Katz. When the talking heads start spouting, it's time to move on.
But then, when Katz starts spouting silliness like this...
President Bush, sticking to his cautious sing-song monotone, fled to various bunkers and seemed to shrink throughout the day.
...I know it's time to get off the 'net as well, and move on with life.
"For the sake of simplicity, certain items such as depreciation and management overhead were excluded from the comparisons."
It's kind of interesting, since management overhead is widely regarded as the main reason why people prefer Windoze systems to Linux systems. People believe that it costs less money to perform essential administration tasks in Windows than it does in Linux.
I'm not stating that the costs actually are lower, but it's not a terribly informative article if they're going to eliminate that important bit of information.
It seems odd to me that they would choose to work in Objective C. If they want the idea to be adopted, if they want their efforts to be worth their while, why not choose a language that has broader support?
Objective-C may have some nice features above and beyond regular C, but if you're going to do work in a relatively obscure language, why not pick one that has better language support for various computing paradigms than popular alternatives? It seems whatever minor quirks of Java and C++ you'd overcome would be less important than being able to draw from a large base of experienced Java/C++ programmers.
Yes, in fact. As the President of the USA, you're a target, no matter who you are. It's also not the case that the Democrats have a different attitude towards Israel than the Republicans.
And as for "Bush stole the election"... You do realize that just as many people believe that Gore was the one who tried to steal the election from Bush? And both points of view are wrong. So spare us the jingoism and partisan crap. This is a shitty time for it.
This is a good article, in that it explains the UNIX small tools approach and dependence on text streams well, and in a way that normal people can understand. But aside from the brief blurb about GoodEasy and a quick explanation of a basic UI design principle, it's mostly just that -- UNIX advocacy.
As if a million voices cried out in terror...and were suddenly silenced.
I fear something terrible has happened.
Re:Try this again, less troll-full, this time.
on
Our New Pearl Harbor
·
· Score: 2
Oh, give me a break. Don't post your sour grapes because you're jealous of Jon Katz's permission.
I'm normally one to outright ignore what Katz has to say, but this was the one time, considering how frequently I not only disagree but feel the exact opposite of what he feels, the one time I was truly interested in what he had to say. And he feels the same as me. And as you. And that's comforting to me. We'll troll each other later, but this time, we see eye-to-eye.
I don't think it's a problem in the sense that it's spoiling the fun of the game for others, in the sense that it's cheating, or anything. It's just like buying and selling Magic cards or something like that. It doesn't spoil everything for the people who just like to play from time to time.
It can be a problem for those who spend more money than they have, and end up going into debt or denying themselves food and the like for weapons.
It's the same as any other hobby, y'know? Why single it out as a "problem" because it's with video games instead of baseball cards or something?
It doesn't even have to be multi-player Civ. Even single-player Civ is an extraordinarily great game for teaching anthropology, history, and political science. More importantly, I think a lot of kids get into trouble because they feel powerless against society. I think that Civ, by showing how technology, sociology, politics, and economics relate to each other, how they support each other, and how they create power for people and nations, can give these kids a better understanding of the world and how they can be empowered within it.
Actually, perdida, although this AC probably needs to be hit over the head with a cluestick, the AC's right to challenge your point of view. But the point he should have made wasn't just random insults but rather that you seem to have gone too far.
Take this statement for example: "this shit is just going to get worse, and it makes me very quiet, i feel like everyone around me is a little fascist now."
There is something in how this is worded that jumps out at me. It's that you don't really believe that everyone around you is a little fascist. It's that you feel that way. And that implies to me that you don't really think things are only going to get worse, either.
I understand how you feel, because I've been there myself. There is a simple way out: History. Read your history.
The stuff going on with the RIAA has countless precedents. You know what? None of it stood then, either. There's nothing about this time around that's going to make it significantly different. From banned books during the Renaissance to the CDA just a few years ago, these things just don't survive for very long. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it; rather, we should be heartened by the fact that our hard work to fight it will pay off.
This person suing the record companies is doing a very good thing, not just for herself and other music lovers, but for artists like you and me.
Slashdot Mirror
The question isn't about accepting the terms of Copyright Law -- it's about accepting the terms of the License which is what determines that I can develop with it as long as I distribute the source.
The Copyright and the License are two separate legal documents. In the case of the GPL, Copyright governs all use of the software, including use and development. But the GPL is a License which only applies to how developers use the source code.
That is what the fellow says in the article, isn't it?
I was wondering about this myself. Usually, for "licensed" software, the license is displayed in front of you in some way -- either as a dialog box before you install or run it the first time, or as a document outside of the physical software distribution medium -- and clicking "OK" or opening the package implies compliance with the license. There's an action implied.
But what action implies agreement with the GPL? Where do I "sign" before I implement the GPL'ed code in my project?
The article you mention may be right, that there is a problem here. Perhaps you could give the volume, issue, and page number of the article?
Maybe (I don't see where Paul explains why the Resurrection is necessary for us to be saved, but I just skimmed the text -- he probably does, only elsewhere)...
But that's no excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because he's wrong on one point doesn't make the entirety of it false. More importantly, what's really missing is that people nowadays have accepted interpretations of scripture without taking the effort to think about them. We've been doing this for too long. And if nothing else, this is a book about thought, and about questioning whether what we believe is really necessary, the only way to read Scripture, or even in agreement with scripture.
If the only thing the Bishop does is cause us to question our beliefs and come back and say that he's wrong on every point after thinking and analyzing his points thoroughly and honestly (which is harder than it sounds), the book still has enormous value.
My phone's batteries typically last over a week even when I leave it on all week long, but then, battery life was one of my main concerns when I was looking for a phone.
"It's difficult to argue price for desktop software. For all intents and purposes, Microsoftware is every bit as free as OSS software. Piracy has contributed to the MS success story enormously."
Yes, but as Microsoft begins to clamp down on licensing violations, price is suddenly going to become a factor. In a sense, these viable free alternatives have arrived with perfect timing, because now people have someplace else to go.
Now you and I both know that KOffice isn't nearly as polished and powerful as MS Office is (and Office XP is going to be).
But the thing is, when you look at how far KOffice has come in how little time, it becomes apparent that it's just a matter of time before it catches up and, provided its leadership isn't content to be "as good as" Office, surpasses Office in features and functionality.
It's the sheer rate of change and speed of development of KOffice that amazes me. In a couple of years, this free alternative to Office will most likely be at least as powerful as MSFT's product, except that it will cost nothing.
Office software is becoming like text editors and browser software: It's something you don't expect to pay for. And if MSFT continues to try to charge people for it, people will move over to the alternatives.
No, it ain't there yet, but look at where it was and where it is now. Look at how short the time was for it to get here.
And just think. Just a few months ago, people were saying that Linux would never be a viable desktop OS. A few who have their heads in the sand still say it. But it is viable now! Even my Dad, who usually lacks the time to learn anything more complicated than instructions written on a sheet of paper that he follows to the letter, could install and get running with KDE under RedHat.
All that's left is a Quicken alternative.
I think he's simply missed the point: That "orthodox" Christianity is no longer truly orthodox. That there's a lot of baggage with "orthodox" Christianity that, when held up to scrutiny and logical thought, doesn't really fit, or is far less important than it's been made out to be.
Take the Virgin Birth. If this were proven to be false, it wouldn't affect my belief that Jesus is the Christ one iota. I certainly believe that God is capable of making a virgin become pregnant. I also believe that God can make a bastard son the Christ. The former version sounds more impressive, but who really needs it?
Or, just stop bathing for a while. Eat lots of raw garlic.
:)
Then, after stunning him with your foul breath, implant the telecommuting suggestion.
It never ceases to amaze me how those who claim to be most christian, often display the most contrary (to the actual teachings of christ) behaviour. This is what drove me away.
You are not alone. Far from it, in fact.
You may be interested in this book: Why Christianity Must Change Or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile. It's been written just for people like you, my family, and most of my friends who are believers. I haven't read it yet, but my parents have, and I'm planning on doing so.
I remember a few years ago, when my mother was an Elder at her local Presbyterian church. This lasted until the more fundamentalist elements of the church organized and essentially staged a takeover of the church leadership, to ensure that their vision of the Bible was the one the church espoused, causing my family and others to be all but ostracized. And my hometown church wasn't alone; across the country, fundamentalist Christians have done the same thing in moderate and liberal churches, since no views are compatible with their mindsets but their own.
Anyhow... I tend to go on about this since it's pretty dear to my heart, but it's true. Modern Christian fundamentalists really are the new Pharisees.
When they conquered most of Spain they basically left the churches alone and let people follow their chosen religious beliefs.
That's becaue Islam is, at its core, a very tolerant religion. So I've been informed.
Bin Laden and his kind don't represent Islam any more than I (a middle-class white nerd from the suburbs) represent African-American gang members.
He is not trying to run a society closer to the exact interpretation of the Muslim religion. Contraversially, he is funding the training of a new militant generation of soldiers who dispise any religion other than their grossly missinterpreted version.
And this is different from extreme fundamentalist Christians in this country how, exactly?
Any white Christian who starts seeing those of other ethnicities or religions as "Them" is not only a poor excuse for a Christian, but ought to be considered as bad as the terrorists themselves.
Speaking as a white Christian...bingo. You just hit the nail on the head. In fact, it's that very attitude that allowed these terrorists to believe that what they were doing was somehow God's Will.
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all filled with references to people who, though they weren't Official Churchgoing Believers, represented God's will better than the average Believer. And an ongoing theme in both the Talmud and the Bible (I can't speak for the Koran, although I've been told Mohammed's teachings are very tolerant of other religions) is the failure of church leaders.
It's ironic. All of these religions which these misguided fundamentalist-whacko "leaders" (such as Osama Bin Laden and Jerry Falwell) supposedly follow condemn the most the Bin Ladens and Falwells of the world, who use God's Name to mislead people, or cause people to commit terrible atrocities.
Bingo. This is the first response to get it right.
If we sacrifice the civil liberties we enjoy as Americans to fight terrorism, even if we destroy every terrorist to a man, they will have won. This is a country based on ideals. If we give up those ideals, we are destroyed utterly, even if the institutions and individuals that make up the country remain.
We're at war. But this is what we're at war against: Ourselves.
By nightfall, CNN, MSNBC and the networks were moving away from the dramatic video and the indescribable scenes of wreckage and carnage and calling in the policy wonks and propellerheads who hide out in Washington caves until something like this happens. The focal point of all the airtime then shifted from the devastation in New York to the parsing and analyzing of the political, governmental and intelligence communities. For future reference, that may be a good time to turn off the tube and get online, the medium of individual stories, feelings and experiences.
On the one hand, I agree with Katz. When the talking heads start spouting, it's time to move on.
But then, when Katz starts spouting silliness like this...
President Bush, sticking to his cautious sing-song monotone, fled to various bunkers and seemed to shrink throughout the day.
...I know it's time to get off the 'net as well, and move on with life.
"For the sake of simplicity, certain items such as depreciation and management overhead were excluded from the comparisons."
It's kind of interesting, since management overhead is widely regarded as the main reason why people prefer Windoze systems to Linux systems. People believe that it costs less money to perform essential administration tasks in Windows than it does in Linux.
I'm not stating that the costs actually are lower, but it's not a terribly informative article if they're going to eliminate that important bit of information.
It seems odd to me that they would choose to work in Objective C. If they want the idea to be adopted, if they want their efforts to be worth their while, why not choose a language that has broader support?
Objective-C may have some nice features above and beyond regular C, but if you're going to do work in a relatively obscure language, why not pick one that has better language support for various computing paradigms than popular alternatives? It seems whatever minor quirks of Java and C++ you'd overcome would be less important than being able to draw from a large base of experienced Java/C++ programmers.
"could you see anyone wanting to kill al gore?"
Yes, in fact. As the President of the USA, you're a target, no matter who you are. It's also not the case that the Democrats have a different attitude towards Israel than the Republicans.
And as for "Bush stole the election"... You do realize that just as many people believe that Gore was the one who tried to steal the election from Bush? And both points of view are wrong. So spare us the jingoism and partisan crap. This is a shitty time for it.
Sounds like political FUD to me. We all know Bush is a lousy public speaker, and this is a crappy time to try and stir up partisan trouble like this.
This is a good article, in that it explains the UNIX small tools approach and dependence on text streams well, and in a way that normal people can understand. But aside from the brief blurb about GoodEasy and a quick explanation of a basic UI design principle, it's mostly just that -- UNIX advocacy.
Not that that's a bad thing, mind you.
As if a million voices cried out in terror...and were suddenly silenced.
I fear something terrible has happened.
Oh, give me a break. Don't post your sour grapes because you're jealous of Jon Katz's permission.
I'm normally one to outright ignore what Katz has to say, but this was the one time, considering how frequently I not only disagree but feel the exact opposite of what he feels, the one time I was truly interested in what he had to say. And he feels the same as me. And as you. And that's comforting to me. We'll troll each other later, but this time, we see eye-to-eye.
This sucks, but it's bringing people together.
Good for Jon.
I don't think it's a problem in the sense that it's spoiling the fun of the game for others, in the sense that it's cheating, or anything. It's just like buying and selling Magic cards or something like that. It doesn't spoil everything for the people who just like to play from time to time.
It can be a problem for those who spend more money than they have, and end up going into debt or denying themselves food and the like for weapons.
It's the same as any other hobby, y'know? Why single it out as a "problem" because it's with video games instead of baseball cards or something?
"On Wednesday, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates showed off a handheld computer that understands which way is up and where it's being touched."
Why do I get the feeling this is the only reason why this new technology was reported?
"Oh, wow, Bill Gates said it, so it must be true..."
*fumes*
It doesn't even have to be multi-player Civ. Even single-player Civ is an extraordinarily great game for teaching anthropology, history, and political science. More importantly, I think a lot of kids get into trouble because they feel powerless against society. I think that Civ, by showing how technology, sociology, politics, and economics relate to each other, how they support each other, and how they create power for people and nations, can give these kids a better understanding of the world and how they can be empowered within it.
Actually, perdida, although this AC probably needs to be hit over the head with a cluestick, the AC's right to challenge your point of view. But the point he should have made wasn't just random insults but rather that you seem to have gone too far.
Take this statement for example: "this shit is just going to get worse, and it makes me very quiet, i feel like everyone around me is a little fascist now."
There is something in how this is worded that jumps out at me. It's that you don't really believe that everyone around you is a little fascist. It's that you feel that way. And that implies to me that you don't really think things are only going to get worse, either.
I understand how you feel, because I've been there myself. There is a simple way out: History. Read your history.
The stuff going on with the RIAA has countless precedents. You know what? None of it stood then, either. There's nothing about this time around that's going to make it significantly different. From banned books during the Renaissance to the CDA just a few years ago, these things just don't survive for very long. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it; rather, we should be heartened by the fact that our hard work to fight it will pay off.
This person suing the record companies is doing a very good thing, not just for herself and other music lovers, but for artists like you and me.