if you are contributing to free software code, by definition you are not making any money.
How so? You can make it so that while your software is libre, that people have to purchase it to obtain it. Volunteering obviously means that you will not make money, but contributing in and of itself doesn't exclude this.
Come on. You're positioning that it's not a real problem because you've never seen it. Hello, Kettle.
No, I'm not at all. My position was that it wasn't talked about more probably because it doesn't effect tons of people. That doesn't mean it's not a problem that shouldn't be fixed. If you care to quote anywhere where I've said otherwise please post it.
If it happened to 4% of the population, it has to be fixed. It's a major, unacceptable bug. I'm guessing from your comment that you don't think 4% is significant. Anything over 1% probably is significant.
I never said it shouldn't be fixed. But the fact of the matter is, if it's not being talked about much it's probably due to it being an issue for a minority of users. It's not as if Mozilla is going to silence people into not talking about this bug and that's why you hear nothing about it.
What exactly is effective in buying someone's product but then refusing to use/listen/watch it? In what way are they even being remotely effected? One basement dweller refusing to listen to old CDs is going to have absolutely zero effect on anything.
Yet I know multiple people that confirm what I see, a large percentage of the people that I know that use firefox. I didn't claim it happened to everyone, but I am suggesting it happens to a significant percentage of people.
That it happens to a large percentage of people you know in no way means that you can extrapolate that it happens to a significant percentage of people. If that were the case it would be talked about more. It's not as if Mozilla is part of some conspiracy to hide the presence of a bug.
Because a lot of people don't get it? This is the first time I've even heard about it and I've been using FF3 since installing Intrepid Ibex on release day.
Segmenting the internet back into region specific chunks is probably the worst thing that happened since MySpace.
So you'd rather Hulu and Netflix be sued into bankruptcy for streaming content to places in the world they have no right to do so? Yeah, that'd be a much greater idea...
Hulu and Netflix, AFAIK, are US-only, and I believe there are still countries where iTunes is unavailable. I would also guess (not using any of them) that they are all Windows-only.
iTunes is clearly not Windows only. Hulu just streams things via flash so it's accessible via any OS with a flash player (which is basically all of them). The Netflix service can be accessed on OS X and Windows via Silverlight and on Linux with Moonlight. So no, none of them are Windows only.
No, his argument is probably that no one has provided any evidence that Microsoft is involved beyond the tenuous link that Software Tree is a Microsoft partner (but so are thousands of other companies). It's funny how Software Tree made this exact same suit involving the exact same patents against Oracle last year but you didn't hear some great uproar about how it was some sort of Microsoft conspiracy...
Really NOT - if they were in any way encouraged (intentionally or unintentionally) to make these loans, then the argument of the people saying that the CRA is culpable to a much larger degree than popularly acknowledged may still be a valid argument even though they overstated the strength of one of their premises by using the word required.
Sure, the CRA definitely encouraged these banks to game the system cause they knew Fannie and Freddie would buy these loans up. I already admitted this and pointed it out from the quoted wikipedia article under it's "criticisms" section.
If that's the case, then fair enough, we have no argument. In my experience, most people don't argue that the CRA didn't require the bad loans and then concede that the CRA still contributed in a material way to the housing crisis, which leads me to my final quote (sorry it's out of order):
Yes, there is no argument that the CRA required anyone to do this but that is what the hardcore right wing people are still claiming to this day as you can see in a number of posts in this thread above. They do this in some attempt to try to act like the banks weren't being greedy and they were just innocent victims of being forced to make bad loans which is not the case in the least. Yes, the CRA did contribute to the banks being stupid because they knew they could sell off the loans, but that was their own greed that came back to the bite them, not some government requirement that they loan out the cash.
So the argument is the degree to which the CRA contributed. Most may not say that the CRA didn't contribute at all, but they will say, like this does, that it was a minor contribution. My point is that even if it was a minority percentage, I'm not sure that that percentage couldn't have pushed a larger portion of the bad loans (whether because of a herd mentality or because the bad loans did work... for a while), and wouldn't have assured the actual issuers of those bad loans that they were good loans at the time ("I heard it was in the law..."). Like I said, I haven't seen those issues studied (if you have, feel free to correct me), and I'm not sure if they can be quantitatively studied, but I can very easily see a scenario where the damage done by the CRA is much larger than the small percentage of bad loans which it directly encouraged.
On almost all points you make here I totally agree, even the last part where the damage was further increased by the CRA loans due to the reckless actions of Fannie and Freddie. These are indisputable facts. On the other hand, the constant claims that the Democrats were forcing banks to make bad loans to people is unsupported nonsense.
I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the word required - the government doesn't have to require anything in order to move a market.
Because that was the claim of the person I was originally responding to?
The Democrats pushed through legislation requiring banks to make "no down payment" loans in order to extend housing to as many low-income Americans as possible
Did you even bother to read my post that you originally responded to?
And once that market's moving, the capitalist system pretty much ensures that everyone's going to jump on board, whether required to or not.
But if they weren't required to make these loans it invalidates all the claims of people saying they were requiring the banks to make these loans.
In short, I've heard a lot of arguments that the CRA isn't at fault because it didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to issue a bad mortgage... no, it didn't, but there are a lot more ways to motivate people than guns, so while that statement may be true, it in no way proves that the CRA wasn't at least a contributing factor to the current crisis.
I don't think anyone is saying CRA didn't contribute to the crisis, I surely didn't. And in fact many studies on this subject show that the loans made due to CRA were actually a minority percentage of all the bad ones. My only point was to ask the person to back up their claims that the CRA did require banks to make these loans which so far no one has been able to do.
Well... apparently you havent seen the way microsoft conducts "bussiness".
I have, but they have no involvement in this case. If you wish to claim otherwise, please provide the evidence beyond tenuous claims based on Software Tree being a Microsoft partner.
This is the second attack on FOSS this year by Microsoft.
No, this is just the second in a series of patent suits that Software Tree has brought up based on the exact same patents and with the same claim of infringement against someone else's system for exchanging data between a relational database and an object oriented system. The previous suit back in 2008 was against Oracle and the claim that their TopLink software infringed their patents. Was Microsoft somehow involved in that case or is just now because it's RedHat this time around?
When you throw a publicly funded entity like Fannie/Freddie into the mix with sub primes you use the government to move the market.
But the fact that they were told to buy up more mortgages in no way required any bank to give out bad loans. You still have yet to show anywhere in the acts where it states that banks are required in any way to loan people money.
The act use the government to change the market.
Yes, all this did was make it so that these private banks intentionally made bad loans because they new Fannie/Freddie would buy them and as such these banks were gaming the system. No where were they required to make any of these loans. I'm still waiting to see a single clause from that act that backs up the statement that saying that the act was "requiring banks to make "no down payment" loans in order to extend housing to as many low-income Americans as possible."
Well, no, there are better nonsequiturs out there but yours is a pretty good one.
Nonsense, I am making structural points about good corporate governance.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that this case isn't being brought by Microsoft and they have no ties to it that anyone has any evidence to back up.
You are Astroturfing.
How exactly am I astroturfing? I don't think that term means what you think it does. By explaining how you have zero evidence of your claims that are based on a intentionally modified quote in the summary that was meant to mislead people into making a tie to Microsoft how is that astroturfing?
It is time for Industry and Corporations to get on and innovate, not squabble, like hyenas on the corpse of long dead, and non-innovative turf marking whose engenderment and existance are the result of Congress passing silly legislation and the USPTO accepting so much dumb, obvious junk.
I totally agree and if you had left it at that we'd have no disagreement. But instead you tack on some imagined ties between Microsoft and this suit out of a whole cloth on nothing more than that Software Tree happens to be a Microsoft ISV.
Again a failure to regulate and efficiently monitor the regulators. Get it? Banking, SEC, Anti Trust at Justice, Energy Policy at Commerce, Stem Cell Research and Id Policy arm-twisting by the Federal Government are not isolated, they are connected by political dogma, and so are these anti Open Source patent cases, in none of which the plaint survives any serious scrutiny and are, I am sure, motivated by M$ greed and its repetious need to "Do some Evil Today".
Funny, was Microsoft involved when this exact same suit over the exact same patents was brought against Oracle last year? Or are they only involved now because RedHat is involved?
Note, I do not seek to prove malfeasance, that is for Justice and the Attornys General, the point is that "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... ",
and we have regulators to distinguish ducks from swans and indite the ducks!
Because you have zero evidence to back up any claims you make of Microsoft being involved in this case.
Do you have a single shred of evidence for your claim other than a quote from the summary which intentionally eliminated the following part that shows they are also partners of Borland, Sun and IBM? It's amazing how easily so many people fall for these summaries that manipulate quotes from the article they post about to make it seem like Microsoft is always involved when the only connection between the two is the fact that Software Tree, LLC happens to have the less than unique distinction of being a Microsoft partner (a title that thousands of other corporations have also paid for).
Software Tree claims that Oracle has infringed the '776 Patent through products including the Oracle TopLink.
"Defendant has actual knowledge of the '776 Patent, and actual knowledge that the Oracle product known as Oracle TopLink product, and all other Oracle products that include TopLink, infringe the '776 Patent," the original complaint states.
I am sorry, it has every relevance, I dont know where you spend your time, but M$ is a convicted corporate anti-trust criminal in both the US and EU.
Nonsequitur at it's finest. The company filing suit isn't Microsoft and as such the fact that they happen to be one among thousands of Microsoft partners doesn't mean that Microsoft is involved.
Slashdot Mirror
if you are contributing to free software code, by definition you are not making any money.
How so? You can make it so that while your software is libre, that people have to purchase it to obtain it. Volunteering obviously means that you will not make money, but contributing in and of itself doesn't exclude this.
Come on. You're positioning that it's not a real problem because you've never seen it. Hello, Kettle.
No, I'm not at all. My position was that it wasn't talked about more probably because it doesn't effect tons of people. That doesn't mean it's not a problem that shouldn't be fixed. If you care to quote anywhere where I've said otherwise please post it.
If it happened to 4% of the population, it has to be fixed. It's a major, unacceptable bug. I'm guessing from your comment that you don't think 4% is significant. Anything over 1% probably is significant.
I never said it shouldn't be fixed. But the fact of the matter is, if it's not being talked about much it's probably due to it being an issue for a minority of users. It's not as if Mozilla is going to silence people into not talking about this bug and that's why you hear nothing about it.
What exactly is effective in buying someone's product but then refusing to use/listen/watch it? In what way are they even being remotely effected? One basement dweller refusing to listen to old CDs is going to have absolutely zero effect on anything.
According to him it was "fucking smokin!"
Yet I know multiple people that confirm what I see, a large percentage of the people that I know that use firefox. I didn't claim it happened to everyone, but I am suggesting it happens to a significant percentage of people.
That it happens to a large percentage of people you know in no way means that you can extrapolate that it happens to a significant percentage of people. If that were the case it would be talked about more. It's not as if Mozilla is part of some conspiracy to hide the presence of a bug.
It's a windows thing.
Never seen it on Windows either. Been using it on two different Windows machines (one XP, one Vista) for at least 4 months.
and I've seen very few people even talk about it.
Because a lot of people don't get it? This is the first time I've even heard about it and I've been using FF3 since installing Intrepid Ibex on release day.
Don't forget about trading back and forth all that public domain movies/music and Linux ISOs!
Segmenting the internet back into region specific chunks is probably the worst thing that happened since MySpace.
So you'd rather Hulu and Netflix be sued into bankruptcy for streaming content to places in the world they have no right to do so? Yeah, that'd be a much greater idea...
Hulu and Netflix, AFAIK, are US-only, and I believe there are still countries where iTunes is unavailable. I would also guess (not using any of them) that they are all Windows-only.
iTunes is clearly not Windows only. Hulu just streams things via flash so it's accessible via any OS with a flash player (which is basically all of them). The Netflix service can be accessed on OS X and Windows via Silverlight and on Linux with Moonlight. So no, none of them are Windows only.
deltree /y c:
Of course there are paper industry trade shows. Here are some from 2008: http://www.exhibitorhost.com/20082009conventions/Paper.html
Why is it weird that the paper industry has conferences just like pretty much any other industry?
This isn't some sort of normal treatment. The guy is part of a clinical trial testing this experimental procedure.
Really? Is that your argument?
No, his argument is probably that no one has provided any evidence that Microsoft is involved beyond the tenuous link that Software Tree is a Microsoft partner (but so are thousands of other companies). It's funny how Software Tree made this exact same suit involving the exact same patents against Oracle last year but you didn't hear some great uproar about how it was some sort of Microsoft conspiracy...
Really NOT - if they were in any way encouraged (intentionally or unintentionally) to make these loans, then the argument of the people saying that the CRA is culpable to a much larger degree than popularly acknowledged may still be a valid argument even though they overstated the strength of one of their premises by using the word required.
Sure, the CRA definitely encouraged these banks to game the system cause they knew Fannie and Freddie would buy these loans up. I already admitted this and pointed it out from the quoted wikipedia article under it's "criticisms" section.
If that's the case, then fair enough, we have no argument. In my experience, most people don't argue that the CRA didn't require the bad loans and then concede that the CRA still contributed in a material way to the housing crisis, which leads me to my final quote (sorry it's out of order):
Yes, there is no argument that the CRA required anyone to do this but that is what the hardcore right wing people are still claiming to this day as you can see in a number of posts in this thread above. They do this in some attempt to try to act like the banks weren't being greedy and they were just innocent victims of being forced to make bad loans which is not the case in the least. Yes, the CRA did contribute to the banks being stupid because they knew they could sell off the loans, but that was their own greed that came back to the bite them, not some government requirement that they loan out the cash.
So the argument is the degree to which the CRA contributed. Most may not say that the CRA didn't contribute at all, but they will say, like this does, that it was a minor contribution. My point is that even if it was a minority percentage, I'm not sure that that percentage couldn't have pushed a larger portion of the bad loans (whether because of a herd mentality or because the bad loans did work ... for a while), and wouldn't have assured the actual issuers of those bad loans that they were good loans at the time ("I heard it was in the law ..."). Like I said, I haven't seen those issues studied (if you have, feel free to correct me), and I'm not sure if they can be quantitatively studied, but I can very easily see a scenario where the damage done by the CRA is much larger than the small percentage of bad loans which it directly encouraged.
On almost all points you make here I totally agree, even the last part where the damage was further increased by the CRA loans due to the reckless actions of Fannie and Freddie. These are indisputable facts. On the other hand, the constant claims that the Democrats were forcing banks to make bad loans to people is unsupported nonsense.
I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the word required - the government doesn't have to require anything in order to move a market.
Because that was the claim of the person I was originally responding to?
The Democrats pushed through legislation requiring banks to make "no down payment" loans in order to extend housing to as many low-income Americans as possible
Did you even bother to read my post that you originally responded to?
And once that market's moving, the capitalist system pretty much ensures that everyone's going to jump on board, whether required to or not.
But if they weren't required to make these loans it invalidates all the claims of people saying they were requiring the banks to make these loans.
In short, I've heard a lot of arguments that the CRA isn't at fault because it didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to issue a bad mortgage ... no, it didn't, but there are a lot more ways to motivate people than guns, so while that statement may be true, it in no way proves that the CRA wasn't at least a contributing factor to the current crisis.
I don't think anyone is saying CRA didn't contribute to the crisis, I surely didn't. And in fact many studies on this subject show that the loans made due to CRA were actually a minority percentage of all the bad ones. My only point was to ask the person to back up their claims that the CRA did require banks to make these loans which so far no one has been able to do.
Well... apparently you havent seen the way microsoft conducts "bussiness".
I have, but they have no involvement in this case. If you wish to claim otherwise, please provide the evidence beyond tenuous claims based on Software Tree being a Microsoft partner.
This is the second attack on FOSS this year by Microsoft.
No, this is just the second in a series of patent suits that Software Tree has brought up based on the exact same patents and with the same claim of infringement against someone else's system for exchanging data between a relational database and an object oriented system. The previous suit back in 2008 was against Oracle and the claim that their TopLink software infringed their patents. Was Microsoft somehow involved in that case or is just now because it's RedHat this time around?
When you throw a publicly funded entity like Fannie/Freddie into the mix with sub primes you use the government to move the market.
But the fact that they were told to buy up more mortgages in no way required any bank to give out bad loans. You still have yet to show anywhere in the acts where it states that banks are required in any way to loan people money.
The act use the government to change the market.
Yes, all this did was make it so that these private banks intentionally made bad loans because they new Fannie/Freddie would buy them and as such these banks were gaming the system. No where were they required to make any of these loans. I'm still waiting to see a single clause from that act that backs up the statement that saying that the act was "requiring banks to make "no down payment" loans in order to extend housing to as many low-income Americans as possible."
I don't know, I was just pointing out that this route of claiming TopLink as prior art may not work depending on whatever happens in that case.
Nonsequitur at it's finest ???
Well, no, there are better nonsequiturs out there but yours is a pretty good one.
Nonsense, I am making structural points about good corporate governance.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that this case isn't being brought by Microsoft and they have no ties to it that anyone has any evidence to back up.
You are Astroturfing.
How exactly am I astroturfing? I don't think that term means what you think it does. By explaining how you have zero evidence of your claims that are based on a intentionally modified quote in the summary that was meant to mislead people into making a tie to Microsoft how is that astroturfing?
It is time for Industry and Corporations to get on and innovate, not squabble, like hyenas on the corpse of long dead, and non-innovative turf marking whose engenderment and existance are the result of Congress passing silly legislation and the USPTO accepting so much dumb, obvious junk.
I totally agree and if you had left it at that we'd have no disagreement. But instead you tack on some imagined ties between Microsoft and this suit out of a whole cloth on nothing more than that Software Tree happens to be a Microsoft ISV.
Again a failure to regulate and efficiently monitor the regulators. Get it? Banking, SEC, Anti Trust at Justice, Energy Policy at Commerce, Stem Cell Research and Id Policy arm-twisting by the Federal Government are not isolated, they are connected by political dogma, and so are these anti Open Source patent cases, in none of which the plaint survives any serious scrutiny and are, I am sure, motivated by M$ greed and its repetious need to "Do some Evil Today".
Funny, was Microsoft involved when this exact same suit over the exact same patents was brought against Oracle last year? Or are they only involved now because RedHat is involved?
Note, I do not seek to prove malfeasance, that is for Justice and the Attornys General, the point is that "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... ",
and we have regulators to distinguish ducks from swans and indite the ducks!
Because you have zero evidence to back up any claims you make of Microsoft being involved in this case.
Oops, the link for the quote section is actually: http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/210664-recent-patentcopyright-infringement-cases-filed-in-u.s.-district-courts Secondly, to further clarify why Sun, for example, wasn't sued is that Sun is a partner of Software Tree, LLC (as their webpage shows) and had licensed their patents for use. Wow, amazing how that was explainable without a conspiracy theory involving Microsoft.
Do you have a single shred of evidence for your claim other than a quote from the summary which intentionally eliminated the following part that shows they are also partners of Borland, Sun and IBM? It's amazing how easily so many people fall for these summaries that manipulate quotes from the article they post about to make it seem like Microsoft is always involved when the only connection between the two is the fact that Software Tree, LLC happens to have the less than unique distinction of being a Microsoft partner (a title that thousands of other corporations have also paid for).
Software Tree claims that Oracle has infringed the '776 Patent through products including the Oracle TopLink.
"Defendant has actual knowledge of the '776 Patent, and actual knowledge that the Oracle product known as Oracle TopLink product, and all other Oracle products that include TopLink, infringe the '776 Patent," the original complaint states.
I am sorry, it has every relevance, I dont know where you spend your time, but M$ is a convicted corporate anti-trust criminal in both the US and EU.
Nonsequitur at it's finest. The company filing suit isn't Microsoft and as such the fact that they happen to be one among thousands of Microsoft partners doesn't mean that Microsoft is involved.