Public schools nearly all suck, because people don't value things they're given for free.
Uhh... Yeah. And murder is bad because it gets bloodstains on the carpet.
Congratulations, you've successfully identified one of the reasons why public education in the US sucks. Of course, if it were the only reason, then public education in Europe would suck as well. Guess what? It doesn't.
Poor people tend to eat BAD food. Short of knocking them down and feeding them vegetables, that's going to be a little difficult to fix, since it's cultural, not economic.
Glad to hear it's got nothing to do with the fact that healthy food is generally more expensive in terms of cost, storage, and time, none of which the working poor have a lot of. And yes kids, contrary to Reagan's lies, the majority of the poor in this country do, in fact, work.
Or were you just knee-jerk blasting out a neo-Socialist partyline motto?
Some day, I guess it's possible that one of you jackasses will actually manage to come up with a supported, convincing, logically coherent argument as to how public education furthers the elimination of private control of the means of production, instead of just red-baiting. However, I'm not waiting.
FYI, STK Powderhorns hold around 5000 1/2" tapes, depending on drives, CAPs, and pass-thrus. Got about 12 of them downstairs from me. I don't believe they currently support LTO drives, a quick glance at STK's website didn't list them as a supported tape type. We're using 9840s, upgrading to 9940s sometime next year. 9840s are definitely the way to go if speed is important, our sustained transfer rates average about 25 MB/s on SAN connected systems.
Most exploits are damaging to the target systems and if you decide to run it against your boxen to "test", you are an either a) an idiot, or b) you are wearing a black hat.
And this means that a non-damaging exploit is impossible for the sysadmin who now has the exploit code to write? That was the whole point, you know.
In the context of the current argument (e.g. Microsoft and bugs/exploits), this is an invalid point. Microsoft do not release source code, and thus you cannot patch their systems.
Uhhh... In the context of the current argument (e.g. the release of exploit source), the fact that Microsoft doesn't release the source to there apps is completely irrelevant.
Microsoft is flogged every second of every day in a lot more channels than you can imagine. I don't think they really need any more pressure to fix things.
Given the recurring security issues with Microsoft software and their refusal to fix fundamental security flaws in their architecture, they apparently do need more pressure.
Most exploits might make an effort to function like this in the manner of trying to preserve system integrity, but exploits are badly written and regardless, someone f*cking around with your system is using up time, your time, and time is money.
Bullshit. I've seen plenty of very well written exploits. Furthermore, the point was that exploits should be non-damaging, which means that the well-written exploits don't use up your time.
There is no necessity for an exploit to be damaging, which seems to be an assumption you're making here.
How much easier could clicking "Windows Update" be, for God's sake?
First off, Windows Update is spyware. It has been proven that the program lies when it says it doesn't transmit information to Microsoft.
Second, fixes for security bugs historically have not been put on Windows Update until they're already causing a disaster. (The.IDA bug Code Red exploited, for example). You have to dig through Microsoft's website to find patches for security holes that aren't currently front-page news. Which is exactly what you have to do with Solaris or Red Hat, and a lot more work than you have to do with Debian or FreeBSD.
Third, Unix bug fixes don't have the kind of history of breaking something else that Microsoft bug fixes do. It still happens occasionally, but it's a lot less frequent.
M$ are pissed off because they are targeted. Plain and simple, they are targeted by disgruntled *nix using kids who don't even know why they hate m$. it's just what every other *nix kid does. M$ are pissed off because *nix kids are more tech savvy than M$ kids. Most m$ kids wouldn't have a clue how to compile an exploit script, whereas the *nix kids can, hence M$ get targetted more than *nix.
Bah, you're just a mentally incompetent Windoze-using moron who's jealous because he can't master the extreme difficulties of the "ls" command.
How about we skip the lying ad hominem attacks from now on, OK?
It's easy to blame m$, because they make the whole package. You never hear anyone saying Linux has bugs/exploits, because ppl will say, no, no it's not linux, that's Apache's fault.
And your point is? Why exactly isn't that a valid reason to blame MS? They're the ones who wrote the code, and more importantly, they're the ones who made the stupid decision to tie their apps so tightly to the OS.
Like every other software company in the world -- this is old news.
Well, then, it's even more important to publish exploits, now isn't it?
a) Office Macros.
Yes, they are a problem. They make life easy for you, but of course if you've spent your life writing Perl scripts in VI, you're never going to understand it. There is a problem inherent in the macro system, but it is more complicated than just disabling a few features.
Strawman argument. He wasn't talking about macros themselves, but the default behaviour. First, please explain why my word processor's macro language needs the ability to format my fucking hard drive? Also, the default behavior was to run macros silently, rather than to inform the user. That was the insecure design decision referenced in the post you were responding to, and you still haven't explained why it wasn't a poor design decision.
b) Email attachments.
Yes, well spotted! M$ software allows you to send attachments in email, isn't that innovation at it's best. Oops, so does every other email program pretty much on any platform. What's that? You can save the attachments and run them? My God! What's your point? I can send you a Tcl script or an ELF binary via email, but will _you_ save it and run it without checking? Where is the real problem here?
And another strawman! The point of the guy you were responding to was that you didn't have to "save the attachments and run them." By default, they were running automatically. Problem two is that Windows hides extensions by default; if you send me a TCL script you can't make it look like a jpeg like you can with Windows. Problem three is that the default behavior of double-clicking on a.vbs is to run it, whereas I have to chmod 700 that TCL script first, and I can look at it a hell of a lot more easily. This was another stupid Microsoft design decision.
In both of these cases, the default behavior is/was extremely insecure.
I've got to use my real ID and stop having to use/.'s flaky search engine. Finding this story after a week is getting tough!
Well, you could just bookmark the top of the thread. That's what I do when I'm trolling AC.
The question is not of original creation, but of derivative creation. If I create an application on Windows that uses the Internet Explorer component, I can write my own license to that software and even redistribute the component as necessary. If the component were GPL'd, I would have to release my application under the GPL as well.
I'd claim that "derivative creation", at least used in this way, is an oxymoron. You can use IE in your application not because you have a legal or moral right to, but because Microsoft has allowed it. Microsoft, unfortunately, uses their power for the most part to control their users, and to strip away their rights. The fact that they give their slaves a half-hour break on Friday night does not make their control any less slavery.
The ability to decide upon the license to my own work has been taken away from me by the original creator through the GPL. If the right of deciding upon my own license is one aspect of Freedom, then the GPL takes that right away.
Actually, you made a knowing choice to sacrifice that right when you decided to base your work upon a GPL'd application. There is no reason you couldn't write a program with similar functionality yourself. For that matter, you could simply offer the original author some of the money you expect to make to allow you to abuse his creation. I'd hope that he would have the moral strength to refuse to allow you to use his work to chain your users, but it is an option open to you.
If your goal is simply to punish commercial software companies for making extensions to existing Open Source code available in a closed source manner, then the GPL is for you.
No. If you do not wish to see your work used to destroy the freedom of users, then the GPL is the license for you.
Please note that I am a troll and using hyperbole in an effort to get your dander up (though these last couple of posts have been less flammable than usual).
Note that I'm trolling the troll to relieve my boredom at work by throwing out a combination of straight-man replies and frothing GNU fanatic rhetoric.:) (Though apparently I need to do more frothing, if you consider some of the crap I've been spewing "less flammable") You're actually taking the time to compose replys which are courteous and relatively coherent, which means I can't just flame ya now.
Because I believe that creation should lead to ownership.
On that, we are, of course agreed. For that matter, you're agreeing with the eeeeeeevil Stallman on that one. You claim that you have the right to distribute augmentations to someone else's creations. You are not the creator here, so do not have rights to the work, other than those the creator choses to give you or you have under copyright law. If the creator chooses to give you additional rights, as in the case of a programmer licensing under the GPL, it's kicking a gift horse in the mouth to whine about the truly minor conditions the license imposes.
Frankly, I find your BSD-zealot attitude highly offensive. I don't accuse you of immorality for using a license that allows Microsoft to get ahold of high-quality code at no cost without giving anything back. (And that assumes that you even write BSD-licensed code, and aren't simply a freeloader who expects other people to do his work for him.) Please grant me the same courtesy and allow me to choose the license under which I distribute my own work, instead of forcing the BSD license on me.
So you're saying that when the bug was revealed Microsoft sent a letter to every registered Windows user saying
"We've found a bug in Windows. The patch is at this address: http://www.microsoft.com/security/latest_stupid_bu g_fix.zip. Here are instructions for installing the patch:.... Here is the phone number to call for technical support with difficulties installing this patch: 1-800-...."
Because that's what GM does. Funny, I don't remember my dad talking about getting letters like that.
I keep coming back because playing with trolls is kinda entertaining, and I'm bored.
Actually, I haven't closed my eyes to the possibility that you might be right. However, given the extraordinary claims you've made while refusing to provide any support whatsoever, I can't exactly give the idea much credit.
Exactly what rights does the GPL take away? Why do you believe you have these rights? By what mechanism does it take them away?
Contentless ad hominem attacks, strawmen, and unsupported blather don't add anything useful to the discussion. If you're too intellectually lazy to actually answer my statements, just deal with the fact that you're wrong.
Yup, that's right. However, unlike Microsoft, they choose not to. Furthermore, GNU software is only a very small percentage of GPL licensed software, and the FSF doesn't have any control whatsoever over the rest.
Trying to change the subject doesn't make your original claim, that the GPL steals something from you, any less of a lie. Instead of trying to weasel out of it, how about retracting your bullshit claim?
If you want to make money, get up off your lazy ass and do your own damn work. You have no right to profit from someone else's work. Under the GPL, you're allowed to, if you can. (And spare me the trolling this time...)
Finally, saying the GPL is an inviable business model is like saying Ford is an inviable philosophy text. The GPL's a software distribution license, you brainless twat.
Well, if I lived in your hypothetical Happylovejoyland, where the federal authorities don't have a 100+ year history of consistently abusing any authority they're given while constantly pushing for more; where Carnivore v2189.3.4 has achieved omniscience and can decrypt all encryption, detect stegonagraphy, pierce all codes, and perform 100% accurate textual analysis; and where the only possible method for terrorists to use to communicate is via email; then I'd certainly give it consideration, and might well be willing to accept it.
However, in this world, there ain't no fucking way.
Bzzzzzt. The GPL does not take away ANY rights that a user would have under copyright law. It only GRANTS rights, with relatively minor conditions. Perhaps you're to stupid to understand that giving you less than your greed deludes you into believing you deserve does not constitute theft?
The GPL restricts freedom by restricting source code augmentation to only those who have nothing to gain by releasing changes.
No. The GPL does not restrict freedom in any way, it grants you freedom. The fact that it does not grant you all of the freedom you want does not mean that it restricts your freedom.
Question. If the civilians in the US do not take up arms against the government that supports Israeli genocide, that spent millions to fund the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, that caused 50 years of bloody totalitarian rule in Iran by supporting the Shah's coup against the parliamentary social democratic government, that had the president of Chile assassinated to put the dictator Pinochet in power, that supported Suharto's genocide in East Timor, that supported Hussein's and Turkey's genocidal actions against the Kurds, and that otherwise has a long and bloody history of replacing democratic governments with murderous totalitarian dictators, are those US civilians fair targets? For example, everyone in the WTC towers who wasn't a citizen of Canada or Japan or one of the other governments who hasn't supported terrorrism?
If the Afghan civilians are acceptable targets, then so were the people in the WTC towers. Through inaction, the American citizens have supported FAR more misery and death than the citizens of any Arab nation. If it's OK to kill their citizens for not handing over bin Laden, then it's just as OK for them to kill ours for not handing over Dulles, Kissenger, Ashcroft, Casey, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton...
The point being, of course, that it's never morally justifiable to kill civilians. To claim that it's OK to kill Afghan civilians but not to kill American ones is the kind of hypocrisy that's made the US oh-so-loved by the rest of the world.
Nope, they're 10 times more likely to get caught committing a violent crime. Of course, this wouldn't have anything to do with the police paying more attention to young black males, now would it?
Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
The only thing racial profiling does is enable old white females to get away with murder.
And the greed in which the MPAA is going after DECSS is typically jewish, too.
Glad to see there's no reason to call you an antisemite. Look, if you're going to bitch about Bnai B'rith being oversensitive about antisemitism, you could at least hide your own antisemitism a little.
Uh... Bnai B'rith controls Hollywood? How? Or is this another one of those "massive Jewish conspiracy" posts from a Christian Identity idiot?
I'd suggest that you look a little more closely at why you've been called an anti-semite in the past. I am opposed to the current Israeli government and I'm not fond of Bnai B'rith and the way they overplay the anti-semitism card, but your post indicates to me that it probably does apply in your case. Claiming bullshit like "The jews think that they own the planet and therefore push their own agenda without regard for other concerns." makes for a pretty good indication that you are, in fact, an anti-semite.
This is the first direct sign that the USA is turning it's heels on democracy. This is the first time that the USA has tried to dissolve protesters cries of their corrupt, non-democratic government.
You mean with the exception of Nicaragua, Chile, Indonesia, Vietnam, and practically every other third-world country which has resources for American corporations to exploit, right? The US doesn't give a damn about democracy, even within its own borders. It sure as hell doesn't care about anyone else; dictatorships make corporate exploitation much more efficient, and American foreign policy has been dictated by the corps for decades.
No the FBI executed a search warrant to make sure there aren't terrorists there that could bomb, nuke, poison, or infect American civilians.
I think you're right on that. However, that shouldn't be sufficient reason to get a search warrant. "...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Remember that little annoyance for law enforcement known as the 4th Amendment? From what I read, this sounds more like what you described, rather than a search based on probable cause of illegal activity, which is the standard law enforcement is supposed to follow. In addition, it sounds more like a fishing expedition than anything else.
Isn't in great to know anyone can suspend your constitutional rights by calling you a terrorist?
How would you like it if your mother/father/daughter/son got killed by a terrorist?
I'd be damned unhappy. But that is extremely unlikely, while the trampling of our rights by law enforcement--justified by fear-mongering drivel like what you just posted--is an absolute certainty right now. I don't feel like trading my rights away to give you a false sense of security. Because it would be false. If a terrorist wants to find a way to blow up your apartment building, they will, no matter what kind of draconian powers you give the police.
But I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt now.
Why? The federal law enforcement authorities have a history of abusing their authority and trampling our rights that's lasted over a century. Why would you be foolish enough to give them the benifit of the doubt? They've proved repeatedly they don't deserve it. If they want us to operate under the assumption that they're worthy of trust in any way, they've got to prove it. Given their repeated, constant abuses in the past, they've got their work cut out for them at this point.
Posting as AC because posting the truth would cost me karma otherwise. Censorship at work, eh?
Oh, bullshit. Despite having no real arguments in your post, you woulda been at least 3, Insightful and you know it. Do you have any idea how OLD whining about this mythical Slashdot censorship is? Besides, you're supposed to be logged in when you kwhore that way.
Why do all the posts insulting left-wingers come from Anonymous Cowards?
Because when conservatives talk about taking responsibility for your actions, they really do mean "your." Responsibility, for them, is something that happens to someone else.
Nope. Just like they have been forever, they're in the business of intimidating, discrediting, and eliminating people who are dangerous to those in power. That's always been their main focus, and it always will be.
Oh, yeah, sure. They'll just abandon their legal responsibilities to their stockholders and go out of business. I'm sure the officers really want to be sued into oblivion.
No, they'll keep researching the drugs, because that's how they make money. Besides, they'll still have the right to patent publically funded research. Get real.
Slashdot Mirror
Public schools nearly all suck, because people don't value things they're given for free.
Uhh... Yeah. And murder is bad because it gets bloodstains on the carpet.
Congratulations, you've successfully identified one of the reasons why public education in the US sucks. Of course, if it were the only reason, then public education in Europe would suck as well. Guess what? It doesn't.
Poor people tend to eat BAD food. Short of knocking them down and feeding them vegetables, that's going to be a little difficult to fix, since it's cultural, not economic.
Glad to hear it's got nothing to do with the fact that healthy food is generally more expensive in terms of cost, storage, and time, none of which the working poor have a lot of. And yes kids, contrary to Reagan's lies, the majority of the poor in this country do, in fact, work.
Or were you just knee-jerk blasting out a neo-Socialist partyline motto?
Some day, I guess it's possible that one of you jackasses will actually manage to come up with a supported, convincing, logically coherent argument as to how public education furthers the elimination of private control of the means of production, instead of just red-baiting. However, I'm not waiting.
FYI, STK Powderhorns hold around 5000 1/2" tapes, depending on drives, CAPs, and pass-thrus. Got about 12 of them downstairs from me. I don't believe they currently support LTO drives, a quick glance at STK's website didn't list them as a supported tape type. We're using 9840s, upgrading to 9940s sometime next year. 9840s are definitely the way to go if speed is important, our sustained transfer rates average about 25 MB/s on SAN connected systems.
Most exploits are damaging to the target systems and if you decide to run it against your boxen to "test", you are an either a) an idiot, or b) you are wearing a black hat.
.IDA bug Code Red exploited, for example). You have to dig through Microsoft's website to find patches for security holes that aren't currently front-page news. Which is exactly what you have to do with Solaris or Red Hat, and a lot more work than you have to do with Debian or FreeBSD.
.vbs is to run it, whereas I have to chmod 700 that TCL script first, and I can look at it a hell of a lot more easily. This was another stupid Microsoft design decision.
And this means that a non-damaging exploit is impossible for the sysadmin who now has the exploit code to write? That was the whole point, you know.
In the context of the current argument (e.g. Microsoft and bugs/exploits), this is an invalid point. Microsoft do not release source code, and thus you cannot patch their systems.
Uhhh... In the context of the current argument (e.g. the release of exploit source), the fact that Microsoft doesn't release the source to there apps is completely irrelevant.
Microsoft is flogged every second of every day in a lot more channels than you can imagine. I don't think they really need any more pressure to fix things.
Given the recurring security issues with Microsoft software and their refusal to fix fundamental security flaws in their architecture, they apparently do need more pressure.
Most exploits might make an effort to function like this in the manner of trying to preserve system integrity, but exploits are badly written and regardless, someone f*cking around with your system is using up time, your time, and time is money.
Bullshit. I've seen plenty of very well written exploits. Furthermore, the point was that exploits should be non-damaging, which means that the well-written exploits don't use up your time.
There is no necessity for an exploit to be damaging, which seems to be an assumption you're making here.
How much easier could clicking "Windows Update" be, for God's sake?
First off, Windows Update is spyware. It has been proven that the program lies when it says it doesn't transmit information to Microsoft.
Second, fixes for security bugs historically have not been put on Windows Update until they're already causing a disaster. (The
Third, Unix bug fixes don't have the kind of history of breaking something else that Microsoft bug fixes do. It still happens occasionally, but it's a lot less frequent.
M$ are pissed off because they are targeted. Plain and simple, they are targeted by disgruntled *nix using kids who don't even know why they hate m$. it's just what every other *nix kid does. M$ are pissed off because *nix kids are more tech savvy than M$ kids. Most m$ kids wouldn't have a clue how to compile an exploit script, whereas the *nix kids can, hence M$ get targetted more than *nix.
Bah, you're just a mentally incompetent Windoze-using moron who's jealous because he can't master the extreme difficulties of the "ls" command.
How about we skip the lying ad hominem attacks from now on, OK?
It's easy to blame m$, because they make the whole package. You never hear anyone saying Linux has bugs/exploits, because ppl will say, no, no it's not linux, that's Apache's fault.
And your point is? Why exactly isn't that a valid reason to blame MS? They're the ones who wrote the code, and more importantly, they're the ones who made the stupid decision to tie their apps so tightly to the OS.
Like every other software company in the world -- this is old news.
Well, then, it's even more important to publish exploits, now isn't it?
a) Office Macros.
Yes, they are a problem. They make life easy for you, but of course if you've spent your life writing Perl scripts in VI, you're never going to understand it. There is a problem inherent in the macro system, but it is more complicated than just disabling a few features.
Strawman argument. He wasn't talking about macros themselves, but the default behaviour. First, please explain why my word processor's macro language needs the ability to format my fucking hard drive? Also, the default behavior was to run macros silently, rather than to inform the user. That was the insecure design decision referenced in the post you were responding to, and you still haven't explained why it wasn't a poor design decision.
b) Email attachments.
Yes, well spotted! M$ software allows you to send attachments in email, isn't that innovation at it's best. Oops, so does every other email program pretty much on any platform. What's that? You can save the attachments and run them? My God! What's your point? I can send you a Tcl script or an ELF binary via email, but will _you_ save it and run it without checking? Where is the real problem here?
And another strawman! The point of the guy you were responding to was that you didn't have to "save the attachments and run them." By default, they were running automatically. Problem two is that Windows hides extensions by default; if you send me a TCL script you can't make it look like a jpeg like you can with Windows. Problem three is that the default behavior of double-clicking on a
In both of these cases, the default behavior is/was extremely insecure.
Nah, that just means he's part of the commie pinko collective instead of the rabid frothing libertarian collective.
Which doesn't apply to copies of the original, no? Right of first sales gives you the right to re-sell the original
RTFA. That's exactly what MS is trying to stop here. This has nothing whatsoever to do with copying.
I've got to use my real ID and stop having to use /.'s flaky search engine. Finding this story after a week is getting tough!
:) (Though apparently I need to do more frothing, if you consider some of the crap I've been spewing "less flammable") You're actually taking the time to compose replys which are courteous and relatively coherent, which means I can't just flame ya now.
Well, you could just bookmark the top of the thread. That's what I do when I'm trolling AC.
The question is not of original creation, but of derivative creation. If I create an application on Windows that uses the Internet Explorer component, I can write my own license to that software and even redistribute the component as necessary. If the component were GPL'd, I would have to release my application under the GPL as well.
I'd claim that "derivative creation", at least used in this way, is an oxymoron. You can use IE in your application not because you have a legal or moral right to, but because Microsoft has allowed it. Microsoft, unfortunately, uses their power for the most part to control their users, and to strip away their rights. The fact that they give their slaves a half-hour break on Friday night does not make their control any less slavery.
The ability to decide upon the license to my own work has been taken away from me by the original creator through the GPL. If the right of deciding upon my own license is one aspect of Freedom, then the GPL takes that right away.
Actually, you made a knowing choice to sacrifice that right when you decided to base your work upon a GPL'd application. There is no reason you couldn't write a program with similar functionality yourself. For that matter, you could simply offer the original author some of the money you expect to make to allow you to abuse his creation. I'd hope that he would have the moral strength to refuse to allow you to use his work to chain your users, but it is an option open to you.
If your goal is simply to punish commercial software companies for making extensions to existing Open Source code available in a closed source manner, then the GPL is for you.
No. If you do not wish to see your work used to destroy the freedom of users, then the GPL is the license for you.
Please note that I am a troll and using hyperbole in an effort to get your dander up (though these last couple of posts have been less flammable than usual).
Note that I'm trolling the troll to relieve my boredom at work by throwing out a combination of straight-man replies and frothing GNU fanatic rhetoric.
Because I believe that creation should lead to ownership.
On that, we are, of course agreed. For that matter, you're agreeing with the eeeeeeevil Stallman on that one. You claim that you have the right to distribute augmentations to someone else's creations. You are not the creator here, so do not have rights to the work, other than those the creator choses to give you or you have under copyright law. If the creator chooses to give you additional rights, as in the case of a programmer licensing under the GPL, it's kicking a gift horse in the mouth to whine about the truly minor conditions the license imposes.
Frankly, I find your BSD-zealot attitude highly offensive. I don't accuse you of immorality for using a license that allows Microsoft to get ahold of high-quality code at no cost without giving anything back. (And that assumes that you even write BSD-licensed code, and aren't simply a freeloader who expects other people to do his work for him.) Please grant me the same courtesy and allow me to choose the license under which I distribute my own work, instead of forcing the BSD license on me.
Awwww.... They're making me actually do work at work this afternoon :( I'll metatroll ya later.
So you're saying that when the bug was revealed Microsoft sent a letter to every registered Windows user sayingu g_fix.zip. Here are instructions for installing the patch: .... Here is the phone number to call for technical support with difficulties installing this patch: 1-800-...."
"We've found a bug in Windows. The patch is at this address: http://www.microsoft.com/security/latest_stupid_b
Because that's what GM does. Funny, I don't remember my dad talking about getting letters like that.
I keep coming back because playing with trolls is kinda entertaining, and I'm bored.
Actually, I haven't closed my eyes to the possibility that you might be right. However, given the extraordinary claims you've made while refusing to provide any support whatsoever, I can't exactly give the idea much credit.
Exactly what rights does the GPL take away? Why do you believe you have these rights? By what mechanism does it take them away?
Contentless ad hominem attacks, strawmen, and unsupported blather don't add anything useful to the discussion. If you're too intellectually lazy to actually answer my statements, just deal with the fact that you're wrong.
Yup, that's right. However, unlike Microsoft, they choose not to. Furthermore, GNU software is only a very small percentage of GPL licensed software, and the FSF doesn't have any control whatsoever over the rest.
Trying to change the subject doesn't make your original claim, that the GPL steals something from you, any less of a lie. Instead of trying to weasel out of it, how about retracting your bullshit claim?
If you want to make money, get up off your lazy ass and do your own damn work. You have no right to profit from someone else's work. Under the GPL, you're allowed to, if you can. (And spare me the trolling this time...)
Finally, saying the GPL is an inviable business model is like saying Ford is an inviable philosophy text. The GPL's a software distribution license, you brainless twat.
Well, if I lived in your hypothetical Happylovejoyland, where the federal authorities don't have a 100+ year history of consistently abusing any authority they're given while constantly pushing for more; where Carnivore v2189.3.4 has achieved omniscience and can decrypt all encryption, detect stegonagraphy, pierce all codes, and perform 100% accurate textual analysis; and where the only possible method for terrorists to use to communicate is via email; then I'd certainly give it consideration, and might well be willing to accept it.
However, in this world, there ain't no fucking way.
Bzzzzzt. The GPL does not take away ANY rights that a user would have under copyright law. It only GRANTS rights, with relatively minor conditions. Perhaps you're to stupid to understand that giving you less than your greed deludes you into believing you deserve does not constitute theft?
The GPL restricts freedom by restricting source code augmentation to only those who have nothing to gain by releasing changes.
No. The GPL does not restrict freedom in any way, it grants you freedom. The fact that it does not grant you all of the freedom you want does not mean that it restricts your freedom.
Question. If the civilians in the US do not take up arms against the government that supports Israeli genocide, that spent millions to fund the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, that caused 50 years of bloody totalitarian rule in Iran by supporting the Shah's coup against the parliamentary social democratic government, that had the president of Chile assassinated to put the dictator Pinochet in power, that supported Suharto's genocide in East Timor, that supported Hussein's and Turkey's genocidal actions against the Kurds, and that otherwise has a long and bloody history of replacing democratic governments with murderous totalitarian dictators, are those US civilians fair targets? For example, everyone in the WTC towers who wasn't a citizen of Canada or Japan or one of the other governments who hasn't supported terrorrism?
If the Afghan civilians are acceptable targets, then so were the people in the WTC towers. Through inaction, the American citizens have supported FAR more misery and death than the citizens of any Arab nation. If it's OK to kill their citizens for not handing over bin Laden, then it's just as OK for them to kill ours for not handing over Dulles, Kissenger, Ashcroft, Casey, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton...
The point being, of course, that it's never morally justifiable to kill civilians. To claim that it's OK to kill Afghan civilians but not to kill American ones is the kind of hypocrisy that's made the US oh-so-loved by the rest of the world.
Nope, they're 10 times more likely to get caught committing a violent crime. Of course, this wouldn't have anything to do with the police paying more attention to young black males, now would it?
Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
The only thing racial profiling does is enable old white females to get away with murder.
And the greed in which the MPAA is going after DECSS is typically jewish, too.
Glad to see there's no reason to call you an antisemite. Look, if you're going to bitch about Bnai B'rith being oversensitive about antisemitism, you could at least hide your own antisemitism a little.
Uh... Bnai B'rith controls Hollywood? How? Or is this another one of those "massive Jewish conspiracy" posts from a Christian Identity idiot?
I'd suggest that you look a little more closely at why you've been called an anti-semite in the past. I am opposed to the current Israeli government and I'm not fond of Bnai B'rith and the way they overplay the anti-semitism card, but your post indicates to me that it probably does apply in your case. Claiming bullshit like "The jews think that they own the planet and therefore push their own agenda without regard for other concerns." makes for a pretty good indication that you are, in fact, an anti-semite.
This is the first direct sign that the USA is turning it's heels on democracy. This is the first time that the USA has tried to dissolve protesters cries of their corrupt, non-democratic government.
You mean with the exception of Nicaragua, Chile, Indonesia, Vietnam, and practically every other third-world country which has resources for American corporations to exploit, right? The US doesn't give a damn about democracy, even within its own borders. It sure as hell doesn't care about anyone else; dictatorships make corporate exploitation much more efficient, and American foreign policy has been dictated by the corps for decades.
No the FBI executed a search warrant to make sure there aren't terrorists there that could bomb, nuke, poison, or infect American civilians.
I think you're right on that. However, that shouldn't be sufficient reason to get a search warrant. "...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Remember that little annoyance for law enforcement known as the 4th Amendment? From what I read, this sounds more like what you described, rather than a search based on probable cause of illegal activity, which is the standard law enforcement is supposed to follow. In addition, it sounds more like a fishing expedition than anything else.
Isn't in great to know anyone can suspend your constitutional rights by calling you a terrorist?
How would you like it if your mother/father/daughter/son got killed by a terrorist?
I'd be damned unhappy. But that is extremely unlikely, while the trampling of our rights by law enforcement--justified by fear-mongering drivel like what you just posted--is an absolute certainty right now. I don't feel like trading my rights away to give you a false sense of security. Because it would be false. If a terrorist wants to find a way to blow up your apartment building, they will, no matter what kind of draconian powers you give the police.
But I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt now.
Why? The federal law enforcement authorities have a history of abusing their authority and trampling our rights that's lasted over a century. Why would you be foolish enough to give them the benifit of the doubt? They've proved repeatedly they don't deserve it. If they want us to operate under the assumption that they're worthy of trust in any way, they've got to prove it. Given their repeated, constant abuses in the past, they've got their work cut out for them at this point.
Posting as AC because posting the truth would cost me karma otherwise. Censorship at work, eh?
Oh, bullshit. Despite having no real arguments in your post, you woulda been at least 3, Insightful and you know it. Do you have any idea how OLD whining about this mythical Slashdot censorship is? Besides, you're supposed to be logged in when you kwhore that way.
Why do all the posts insulting left-wingers come from Anonymous Cowards?
Because when conservatives talk about taking responsibility for your actions, they really do mean "your." Responsibility, for them, is something that happens to someone else.
Nope. Just like they have been forever, they're in the business of intimidating, discrediting, and eliminating people who are dangerous to those in power. That's always been their main focus, and it always will be.
Oh, yeah, sure. They'll just abandon their legal responsibilities to their stockholders and go out of business. I'm sure the officers really want to be sued into oblivion.
No, they'll keep researching the drugs, because that's how they make money. Besides, they'll still have the right to patent publically funded research. Get real.