Maybe the Russian gentleman should have told us also about the more inventive Soviet strategies employed to break the Afghan spirit: dropping colorful plastic toy mines in the form of little dinosaurs and cars, designed to blow off the hands of (but not kill) children.
international law is completely irrelevant. It has no enforcement mechanism
The enforcement mechanisms of international law are sanctions and war, both of which the US happily uses whenever it suits her.
it is a war just because we say it is!
Well then I say it is not a war and therefore it is not.
I have been told by the media (who were told by the US government) that such evidence exists and is plentiful. [...] I also believe it was planned and executed with the knowledge, funding, and possibly explicit consent of a nation-state
Wow, that's amazing. I have been following the complete coverage of the New York Times since the day the attack happened, and concrete evidence linking bin Laden or any government to the attacks hasn't been mentioned once. Bin Laden is repeatedly cited as the prime suspect; there is hard evidence that he was involved in other terrorist attacks and it is conjectured that he trained and supported the hijackers of the recent attack. No involvement of any government has ever been mentioned, not even by the US government. They only complain that Afghanistan doesn't arrest and turn over bin Laden (even though there is no extradition treaty and they really have no legal leg to stand on).
I think you should read and listen more carefully. "Suspect" has nothing to do with "evidence". Remember Wen Ho Lee?
Well, this is a war not a crime, but since people seem to like applying crime metaphors...
Unless you use the term "war" loosely in the sense of "war on drugs" or "war on poverty", this is most certainly not a war, and it doesn't become one by simply calling it that. War is a well-defined term of international law, and this is not it.
If you order a hit on someone, you are considered *more* responsible for the murder than the hitman who pulls the trigger. He's just doing his job, *you* are the real villian, as far as the law is concerned.
Agreed. Has there been any evidence that anybody ordered these people to sacrifice themselves? Has there been any evidence that anybody other than the hijackers planned the hijackings?
I would compare it to abortion doctor shootings. The shooters feel moral support from their community and outrage against a common enemy, and then they take an action which is in fact not supported by the community. Are the people in the community using vile rethorics against abortion doctors responsible for the abortion doctor killings?
Not to denigrate the Dalai Lama or his gentle philosophies, but the most hideous and prolonged death imaginable is too good for the people that did this.
I'm not sure if you can understand a concept as complicated as this, but the people who did this are dead.
In fact, they were happy to give their lifes in order to kill as many Americans as possible.
In theory, if you happen to have a pitchblende (uranium ore) mine in your back yard, then you can build a nuclear reactor and fuel it! legally! In the U.S.!
Yup, and then just sit back and wait until those fuckers crash a jumbo jet into it. We are not talking 5,000 quick deaths, we're talking 50,000 slow ones. Have a nice day.
Are you really asking why millions around the world hate America? Isn't it plain and clear?
American intervenes when it is in her interest (Iraq - oil) but not when it's not (Ruanda). The US therefore have morally no leg to stand on in the world community, but they keep boasting that they are the beacon of hope for freedom on human rights in the world. Then they happily spit in the face of the world by not paying UN dues, even though they are richer than anybody else. They use more of the world's resources than anybody else per capita, and when it is suggested that that may endanger the future, they laugh it off and ignore international treaties. The world is almost uninamously in agreement that the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians should be condemned, but the US uses its veto power (why do they deserve veto power anyway?) to stop all action in that direction. Poor countries are desparately trying to protect their fragile economies from foreign competition, but the US insists that even the weakest immediately join the free trade world economic order and compete on equal terms with her own sophisticated industry. The US hoard intellectual property and then complains when poor countries start to manufacture Aids drugs which are otherwise unaffordable.
To promise retaliation is not hubris, it's appropriate.
If your opponent is a muslim engaged in holy war (which is pure speculation right now), then retaliation is stupid: that person *wants* to die in war, because then he will rise directly to paradise, will live forever next to the prophet and will get seven virgins who fulfill all his wishes. Not a bad deal if you ask me.
GPL advocates that tend to piss me off the most are the ones who forget that I, as a software developer, have the right to choose what rights I grant to a user
You say "forget" as if it were a fact that they knew once. In fact, GPL advocates and others *deny* that you have a right to restrict what other people do in the privacy of their own homes.
The original comment made a point about making a good impression to the business world.
Who cares about the fucking suits? Let them eat shit a.k.a. Windows and die. Good impression my ass. This is not a fucking powerpoint presentation. We don't need their stinking money. We are free.
People who are driven by a profit motive have no moral leg to stand on. Why not screw them over a bit with the SPL license? After all, they are trying to screw us too (charge more than the product is worth, advertising propaganda so that people will buy who don't need the product etc.).
If you are not doing it for the love of doing it, you are not good at it anyway.
I totally and wholeheartedly disagree. On the basis that most ideas are thoughts, are you saying that my thoughts are not mine, or cannot belong to me specifically? So all of my thoughts should be instantly available, even to people who I'd rather know them?
You own your brain, and the patterns in your brain, no doubt about that. I own my brain and the patterns in my brain. I hope you grant me that.
Patent law says: you can own the patterns in my brain if they occured first in your brain. That's absurd. You cannot own my brain. Of course, you are more than welcome to keep your ideas to yourself, but don't complain if I figure them out myself. If you tell your idea to me, then they are in my brain and therefore mine. They are also still yours, so don't complain. I didn't take anything from you.
Raymond exposes his typical narrow capitalist-libertarian concept of freedom with his flerbage definition.
Should people be allowed to sell their organs?Should they be allowed to sell themselves into slavery? Should people be allowed to discuss and plan
pricing of their products with competitors? Should people be allowed to sign away their fair-use rights? Should people be allowed to bribe officials?
All of these increase the affected people's flerbage.
He has no passport, and no freedom of movement (he can't leave California, and he most certainly can't go home to Russia).
Big deal. Take a greyhound down to San Diego, take the trolley to the border, walk over to Tijuana, go to the next Russian consulate, get yourself a temporary passport and fly home.
"Point out which elements in a typical distro you can use without having to Open Source your proprietary app." We can be constructive and in doing so, achieve much more free software adoption.
But the goal is not "more free software adoption" but "more free software". As such, telling people how to port their proprietary software to free systems in counter productive.
Most Americans don't see any of those profits; Nike may have their shoes made for $2 by impoverished Indonesian teenagers, but that doesn't make them cheaper for the consumer. It allows Nike to spend more money on endorsements from superstars [I refuse to buy Nike for this reason]. It sure as hell isn't helping my standard of living
You forget that quite likely, you own part of Nike. Have you checked the holdings of the funds in your retirement accounts lately? You are directly benefiting from their abuses. And the abuses are carried out in your name.
Could I circumvent this "Copyright for all copies at once" by slightly modifying the copy before providing it to the publisher and selling its copyright? I still keep the original's copyright, no?
I have a general question: is the Copyright attached to the copy itself, or to the work, i.e. all copies?
In other words, would it be possible for me to write something, make a xerox, and then transfer the copyright of one copy to you, but keep the copyright of the other copy?
No it isn't. You have to provide personal information in order to sign up, that's a cost, because people pay money for this kind of valuable information.
You have to endure ads in order to read your email, that's a cost because it pollutes your brain.
Here's a neat (albeit *extremely* slow) idea: whip up a small (lisp? scheme?) program to generate all correctly-formed C programs without any string constants and exactly one function putc(), smallest to larger, and compile them all, and see exactly which ones output your file.
Except some of those programs will never halt. And Turing taught us that by simply at a program, you cannot tell whether it will ever halt. You have to run it. And that may take time.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the Russian gentleman should have told us also about the more inventive Soviet strategies employed to break the Afghan spirit: dropping colorful plastic toy mines in the form of little dinosaurs and cars, designed to blow off the hands of (but not kill) children.
international law is completely irrelevant. It has no enforcement mechanism
The enforcement mechanisms of international law are sanctions and war, both of which the US happily uses whenever it suits her.
it is a war just because we say it is!
Well then I say it is not a war and therefore it is not.
I have been told by the media (who were told by the US government) that such evidence exists and is plentiful. [...] I also believe it was planned and executed with the knowledge, funding, and possibly explicit consent of a nation-state
Wow, that's amazing. I have been following the complete coverage of the New York Times since the day the attack happened, and concrete evidence linking bin Laden or any government to the attacks hasn't been mentioned once. Bin Laden is repeatedly cited as the prime suspect; there is hard evidence that he was involved in other terrorist attacks and it is conjectured that he trained and supported the hijackers of the recent attack. No involvement of any government has ever been mentioned, not even by the US government. They only complain that Afghanistan doesn't arrest and turn over bin Laden (even though there is no extradition treaty and they really have no legal leg to stand on).
I think you should read and listen more carefully. "Suspect" has nothing to do with "evidence". Remember Wen Ho Lee?
Well, this is a war not a crime, but since people seem to like applying crime metaphors...
Unless you use the term "war" loosely in the sense of "war on drugs" or "war on poverty", this is most certainly not a war, and it doesn't become one by simply calling it that. War is a well-defined term of international law, and this is not it.
If you order a hit on someone, you are considered *more* responsible for the murder than the hitman who pulls the trigger. He's just doing his job, *you* are the real villian, as far as the law is concerned.
Agreed. Has there been any evidence that anybody ordered these people to sacrifice themselves? Has there been any evidence that anybody other than the hijackers planned the hijackings?
I would compare it to abortion doctor shootings. The shooters feel moral support from their community and outrage against a common enemy, and then they take an action which is in fact not supported by the community. Are the people in the community using vile rethorics against abortion doctors responsible for the abortion doctor killings?
I'm not sure if you can understand a concept as complicated as this, but the people who did this are dead.
In fact, they were happy to give their lifes in order to kill as many Americans as possible.
Yup, and then just sit back and wait until those fuckers crash a jumbo jet into it. We are not talking 5,000 quick deaths, we're talking 50,000 slow ones. Have a nice day.
Are you really asking why millions around the world hate America? Isn't it plain and clear?
American intervenes when it is in her interest (Iraq - oil) but not when it's not (Ruanda). The US therefore have morally no leg to stand on in the world community, but they keep boasting that they are the beacon of hope for freedom on human rights in the world. Then they happily spit in the face of the world by not paying UN dues, even though they are richer than anybody else. They use more of the world's resources than anybody else per capita, and when it is suggested that that may endanger the future, they laugh it off and ignore international treaties. The world is almost uninamously in agreement that the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians should be condemned, but the US uses its veto power (why do they deserve veto power anyway?) to stop all action in that direction. Poor countries are desparately trying to protect their fragile economies from foreign competition, but the US insists that even the weakest immediately join the free trade world economic order and compete on equal terms with her own sophisticated industry. The US hoard intellectual property and then complains when poor countries start to manufacture Aids drugs which are otherwise unaffordable.
Is it really that hard to understand?
You still think like somebody who fears to die. They don't. They *want* to die for what they believe in.
... and as long as you don't care being prosecuted as a war criminal afterwards.
You may not know this, but even in war you are not allowed to target civilians. And it doesn't matter who attacked first; it's an absolute rule.
If your opponent is a muslim engaged in holy war (which is pure speculation right now), then retaliation is stupid: that person *wants* to die in war, because then he will rise directly to paradise, will live forever next to the prophet and will get seven virgins who fulfill all his wishes. Not a bad deal if you ask me.
50,000 people work in the towers, not half a million.
Well, whoever did this is dead. Apparently, they were more than happy to die in order to piss off America.
You say "forget" as if it were a fact that they knew once. In fact, GPL advocates and others *deny* that you have a right to restrict what other people do in the privacy of their own homes.
Well at least in the U.S., you can't force a copyright holder to GPL his work.
If his work was derived from a GPLed source, copyright law together with the GPL force the copyright holder to GPL his work.
Who cares about the fucking suits? Let them eat shit a.k.a. Windows and die. Good impression my ass. This is not a fucking powerpoint presentation. We don't need their stinking money. We are free.
People who are driven by a profit motive have no moral leg to stand on. Why not screw them over a bit with the SPL license? After all, they are trying to screw us too (charge more than the product is worth, advertising propaganda so that people will buy who don't need the product etc.).
If you are not doing it for the love of doing it, you are not good at it anyway.
You own your brain, and the patterns in your brain, no doubt about that. I own my brain and the patterns in my brain. I hope you grant me that.
Patent law says: you can own the patterns in my brain if they occured first in your brain. That's absurd. You cannot own my brain. Of course, you are more than welcome to keep your ideas to yourself, but don't complain if I figure them out myself. If you tell your idea to me, then they are in my brain and therefore mine. They are also still yours, so don't complain. I didn't take anything from you.
Raymond exposes his typical narrow capitalist-libertarian concept of freedom with his flerbage definition.
Should people be allowed to sell their organs?Should they be allowed to sell themselves into slavery? Should people be allowed to discuss and plan
pricing of their products with competitors? Should people be allowed to sign away their fair-use rights? Should people be allowed to bribe officials?
All of these increase the affected people's flerbage.
He has no passport, and no freedom of movement (he can't leave California, and he most certainly can't go home to Russia). Big deal. Take a greyhound down to San Diego, take the trolley to the border, walk over to Tijuana, go to the next Russian consulate, get yourself a temporary passport and fly home.
But the goal is not "more free software adoption" but "more free software". As such, telling people how to port their proprietary software to free systems in counter productive.
You forget that quite likely, you own part of Nike. Have you checked the holdings of the funds in your retirement accounts lately? You are directly benefiting from their abuses. And the abuses are carried out in your name.
Could I circumvent this "Copyright for all copies at once" by slightly modifying the copy before providing it to the publisher and selling its copyright? I still keep the original's copyright, no?
In other words, would it be possible for me to write something, make a xerox, and then transfer the copyright of one copy to you, but keep the copyright of the other copy?
No it isn't. You have to provide personal information in order to sign up, that's a cost, because people pay money for this kind of valuable information. You have to endure ads in order to read your email, that's a cost because it pollutes your brain.
--
Except some of those programs will never halt. And Turing taught us that by simply at a program, you cannot tell whether it will ever halt. You have to run it. And that may take time.
--