You called the GPL a Communism theory. It's not! It's not restricting making money on S/W! The GPL is about sharing code, not commune living!
I'm not sure I undestand. The Linux kernel is a commune. If you want to modify and redistribute it, you can, but you have to contribute your changes back to the community. It's like local police in the US. If you want to be a member of the community and enjoy the protection afforded by local police, you have to contribute to the tax base. I'm pretty sure that is what communism is.
I'm not 100% sure here, but let me offer a theory: You are confusing the abstract theory of communism (which is good, and used heavily in the US and most of the rest of the world) with the straw man image of communism created by western democracies during the cold war. That image is no more real than the idea that marijuana use causes terrorism.
First off, the GPL is RMS's. It is no more possible for RMS to ruin the GPL than it is for humans to destroy the Earth. The Earth is the Earth. It may not support human life, but it will be just fine even if we kill ourselves. Likewise, the GPL is what RMS wants it to be. He wants it to be a tool for social change. That renders it incompatible with some other people's goals. So what? It's his work. He can do with it as he pleases. Furthermore, the GPL is GPL'd. If Forbes doesn't like it, they can write a derivative; the Forbes Public License. Many have.
Second, ummm, geee - Forbes doesn't grasp the GPL?!? I'm shocked! Really, I'm so stunned you could knock me over with a sledgehammer. Forbes is an outstanding journal of capitalism. The GPL is one of the foremost modern examples of successful communism. Capitalism is a good theory. Communism is a good theory. But they're not exactly compatible (or, IMO, practical) when taken as religion. Is it any surprise that Forbes not only fails to understand the purpose of the GPL and it's creator, but villifies it and him? If they had known the GPLv2 existed before Linux became one of the three most installed operating systems in history, you can bet your last dollar they would have villified it as well.
You want something shocking, read the article about the IE team sending a cake to the Firefox team. That is very cool, and at least somewhat surprising. Coke claiming Pepsi is bad? What do you expect?
Is the GPLv3 going to be as successful as the GPLv2? Well, it took 20 years for the GPL to get to the point where a magazine like Forbes wouldn't scoff at it as utterly impractical hippy idealism. Most people don't understand why DRM is a bad idea - hell most of them don't even know what DRM is. It'll probably be another 10 years before we can even begin to judge the value of the GPLv3. Anyone claiming to have the answer today is either a snake-oil vendor or, as in this case with Forbes, a religious zealot.
If, say, a coder makes something that has a high impact on company productivity he might go - probably - unnoticed. If a sales guy/gal makes a big sale, (s)he normally is a hero. That is, at least, what I tend to see.
There is one significant place where this is the opposite of the truth. The darling of the business world. Google. But it's all lip service. We talk about emulating Google at my corporation, but it always comes out as, "Lots of good ideas there - but we need more management control, and we can't shift the power/compensation structure."
Hey, if any of the people running these bot nets is reading this, can you get in touch with me? I'd like to get the aggregated personal tax return information for the past thirty years or so, so I can do a fact-based analysis of shifts in wealth distribution. Thanks in advance.
Clearly what we need in response to this new threat is more laws. We must outlaw things so that our children can be protected from these online predators. And while we may not be sure exactly what to outlaw, surely we can start by outlawing things that are new or used by strange people. It may not solve the problem, but we can't know for sure until we start outlawing things. In this new world of threats that have never been seen before, we have to have the courage to pass laws before we know what is wrong. The only other option is to wait until after the ambiguous threat has caused the damage it may or may not intend to cause. We simply cannot stand idly by and let that maybe happen.
But they're not griping about the policy, are they? They're pissed about the timing, because it may set Etch back and Mozilla has refused to defer the matter, but they're willing to take the trademark and logo off.
Just s/Debian/Mozilla and you have the exact reason the Mozilla people are protecting their image. For shame, Debian.
I don't understand. Debian hasn't said they won't obey Mozilla's desires. They are pretty peeved about the timing; getting Etch out the door in a timely manner has been a very important and public issue Debian - that is being jeopardized by this, and Mozilla has declined to defer the issue. But they're going to do exactly what Mozilla has asked - either get the patches approved, or stop using the trademark.
But Mr. Conner... has repeatedly said that every patch that the distribution applies must be approved by the Mozilla Corporation ahead of time.
Well, fine. But that means Debian can't use the Mozilla trademarks. They can't just say, "Oh, sure, we'll hold off on this security patch till later." I use Debian for production servers (though obviously without apps like Firefox installed). Holding security patches until Mozilla gets around to approving them is not a reasonable solution. The fact that I know that every security patch will hit my machine fast, usually within a day, is why I use Debian.
Debian's problem has always been that its handlers place users and the usability of their distribution far below very petty internal arguments intended to frame the distro as some sort of legal pioneer (Debian Linux vs. Debian GNU/Linux "controversy" anyone?). It's a huge turnoff to the non-zealots among us, and certainly makes for bad PR.
Debian's "problem"? Umm, I think that is what makes it Debian. Does RedHat have the "problem" that they focus too much on their proprietary components? Does Mandrake have the "problem" that they focus too much on GUI configuration? Does Gentoo have the "problem" that they focus too much on source-based builds? Does Slackware have the "problem" that they focus too much on being like Unix?
How 'bout this instead: Windows and Mac have the problem that they don't have a bunch of different groups of people with different objectives packing up distros that cater to different needs. Or, if you want a particularly dumb common complaint: Linux has the problem that there are too many distros.
Oh, and by the way; it's not that Debian just feels like being idealists. Their intent is for Debian to be the base platform for other distros - like Ubuntu and Knoppix. The best way to support that kind of extension is by having a truly free base distribution.
The report being released today -- which was largely paid for by Armey's think tank with some funding from NBC Universal and the MPAA -- takes the previous study, conducted by consulting firm L.E.K., and applies a model used by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis to calculate the potential ripple effect of those lost sales, factoring in lost jobs, worker earnings and tax revenue.
It's called, "Velocity of Money." It is econ 101 (literally - it was in my first econ class at a mediocre state school). Anyone who knows anything about formal economics knows about the velocity of money. Unfortunately, that probably means noone in congress will know about it.
But it sure would be satisfying to hear a Senator say, "You brought us this? How much did you spend on this? We already know about the velocity of money. I could have explained it to you in 3 minutes. I mean, most people don't know about this because they don't have to, but understanding economics is, to put it lightly, important in your field. You mock your customers with your ineptitude."
It is the player's choice to kill, or rob, or rape, or maim. Just like in real life. I can ask you to do something vile and reprehensible, but it is always your choice as to whether or not you will comply.
No kidding. I have played thousands of hours of first person shooters, including nearly one hundred hours of GTA:SA. Yet, oddly enough, I still have never had a desire to kill anyone. I can't explain why, it's just not something that ever interested me. At the same time, I don't have a problem with people who kill for good reasons - the Allied soldiers in WW-II come to mind as iconic examples - but it's just not my thing. Having spent a great deal of time engrossed in the very behavior this suit villifies, I cannot comprehend how a game could change my lack of desire to kill - or how not playing those games could defer an unhealthy mind's desire to kill.
He refrains from more PTR activity, he claims, because it's no good for advertisers, no good for Google, no good for Yahoo.
Ahh yes, this reminds me of my days as a mercenary for hire. See, I was a moralist hitman. I flatly refused to stab people to death. If someone asked, I'd tell them, "Look, I shoot them - 2 to the body, one to the head - or the deal's off. Stabbing people to death is bad for business."
Say Kiss, if you're reading this; do the world a favor and step in front of a bus when you get a chance. Your ad sites are not content, they are pollution.
The study focused on 5,300 graduate students in Canada and the US and concluded that the biggest cheaters were business students -- 56% of them admitted to copying papers, plagiarizing, etc. The author of the study said, 'The typical comment is that what's important is getting the job done. How you get it done is less important. You'll have business students saying all I'm doing is emulating the behavior I'll need when I get out in the real world.
The study must have been done on students in the first half of their business degree, and the second half must be the part where they teach, "Always lie about cheating."
He never said anything about apple. You added that yourself and you should have noted that you did.
Here is his entire post:
It seems to me that if you create a format called "PlaysForSure", it should actually "Play for Sure". OTherwise your customers might - oh, I don't know - lose confidence in your ability to compete in the market? Instead, they'll go to a certain competitor that does "Play for Sure" despite not advertising such?
It's almost as if Microsoft is reading Slashdot. Their new business plan is:
1. Create a format called "PlaysForSure" 2. Make certain that it doesn't "Play for Sure" 3. Cede 95% of the market to Apple 4. ??? 5. PROFIT!
lose confidence in your ability to compete in the market? Instead, they'll go to a certain competitor that does "Play for Sure"...to Apple
Wha?!?
A blatant demonstration of exactly why DRM is an extaordinarily bad deal for the user, and the answer you reach is, "People will switch to the other mass market DRM"?
Wow. The worst part is, assuming any of the unwashed masses even notice, you're probably right.
The first wearable computer was used for this from 1961 to 1966. When it wasn't bugged, it worked well. The project started at MIT in 1955. I thought there was a link to Bill Gates also, but I can't find that part.
You don't really think the bank is going to create money to pay for the losses, do you? Make no mistake about it--banks, like every other convenient, abstract legal fiction--don't pay for anything. Individuals pay for things.
While that is true enough, it only pushes the question further back. Should/will the individuals who ultimately pay be the stupid customers, all customers, the shareholders, or the payroll recipients? Looking at it in an abstract sense, phishing is an expense. When expenses for a corporation increase, it reduces profit, increases losses, or first one, then the other. In the case of most banks today, it would reduce profits. The bank can shift that expense directly to the customers that cause the expense (like when you buy add-ons to your car), they can spread it across all customers (like insurance), or they can reduce payroll (or some other expense - which just repeats this process at some other company). If they do none of those things, profits decline and the shareholder pays.
You are making the mistaken assumption that this is a free market with perfect information, and that all prices therefore have reached market equilibrium. In a heavily regulated and initial-investment-heavy field like banking, it is not remotely a free market. Even if it were, the idea that there is anything like perfect information available is laughable. Simple example: Ads for "Totally Free Checking(*)."
Oh, and BTW, the opposite of your statement is also true. Individuals never pay for anything, it is always some abstract entity that pays. Either through higher wages, dividends, lower taxes, welfare, whatever. The money that individuals spend always comes from some non-individual entity. People don't just print money up in their basement. For more detail, see "Velocity of Money." Fiat money is a medium for trade, its entire purpose is to flow through individuals and entities. Wherever you draw the line and say, "this is the official starting point", that is where the money "comes from." But it is no more true than saying water comes from clouds or water comes from oceans.
* See website for details! (details include: 'Totally Free' in this context means 'lots of fees.') Yes, that is hyperbole for levity, but the truth is not that much better.
I'm thinking if Apple had a choice, they would not put DRM onto their files.
What? If they had a choice? Umm, newsflash: They have a choice. There is a side effect to that choice, but choosing to do something that is wrong because you make money at it is not the same as not having a choice.
because I'm convinced that the "good guys" (and we ARE them, by & large) cannot win against an insidious, merciless, and determined enemy by being Dudley Do-Right and playing with one hand tied behind their back.
What are we fighting for? If we stop being Dudley Do Right, do we not stop being America? Aren't our Constitution and Bill of Rights the very things that give us the right to look down our noses at Afghanistan? If we stop being good, then the only right we have to power is the fact that we have more bombs and money. That was Saddam's reason for having power in Iraq. Our power is not an end, it is a means.
I couldn't care LESS if the government is reading my emails, listening to my telephone calls, or keeping me under direct surveillance, aside from being annoyed that they're wasting their time. Yawn.
What if Hillary Clinton becomes president in 10 years or so, and she decides the right to keep and bear arms is making law enforcement too dangerous? Would you still be so comfortable with the executive having this much power?
I fail to see why anyone is happy having rice with unintentional, random genetic changes (i.e. natural rice) and concerned over intentional changes.
Do you want to see, or are you saying you choose not to see?
If the former, the answer is simple; rate of change. Leaving aside the patent issue (people getting sued because the pollen blown on the wind fertilized their crop), there is the problem of sudden introduction of a new species. When a new species evolves over time, it places gradual pressures on the ecosystem around it. The other biologicals in the environment, when put under such pressure, have time to smoothly adapt. It has worked pretty well by and large - large scale die-offs are pretty rare. But then, so are sudden introductions of new species (historically speaking). Dramatic mutations are usually lethal, and distant migrations were difficult until recently. Within the past thousand years or so, however, we have had a number of them. Not GM, but things like zebra mussells and rabbits in Australia. Those sudden introductions shock the ecosystem. Those shocks can make the planet, or portions of it, less hospitable to us.
It's not about GM per se (at least not on any rational level), it's about the rate of change exceeding the ecosystem's ability to smoothly adapt.
why are you singling the usa out for accountability for what every country is guilty of?
There's a difference between being guilty and just doing something. Doing something is just doing it. Being guilty is doing it when it violates your principles. The USA's founding principles are entirely about equality in the eyes of the government. The UK (for example) has the House of Lords and a deeply ingrained class system. Titled people in the UK are supposed to be entitled to better treatment. In the USA, unequal treatment is a violation of the fundamental principles of our system of government. When the UK does it, they just do it. When the US does it, we are guilty.
But if they are thinking GPL way,... outcomes are presented for public use but you are not allowed use it, even though they paid for a portion of it;
GPL covers only redistribution without providing source, not use. Proprietary software has all the same restrictions, and many more. You can read more about it, including seeing the actual license (something you apparently have not done), at http://www.fsf.org/
Well, Alaska was bought by the feds, so the feds still own my house here?
Was the house there when the Fed bought Alaska? If so, and noone has yet bought it from the Fed, then the answer is at least, "maybe."
I hate to think I spent all that money for something I don't own.
Ahh, I see. So you bought your house. That would make it yours as far as I know.
Did Alaska buy the oil fields? Did Alaska buy the mineral rights? Are we talking about pumping from federal land, state land, or private land?
If you can't answer those questions, that's fine, simply say, "I don't know." I don't know either.
Alaska pays more to the feds than it receives. Period. The report is wrong, and I'm telling you why.
No, you're not. You're saying, "the Fed doesn't own my house in Alaska, therefore it does not own the mineral rights in Alaska either." That is not telling me why the report is wrong, it is a non-sequiter.
Slashdot Mirror
You called the GPL a Communism theory. It's not! It's not restricting making money on S/W! The GPL is about sharing code, not commune living!
I'm not sure I undestand. The Linux kernel is a commune. If you want to modify and redistribute it, you can, but you have to contribute your changes back to the community. It's like local police in the US. If you want to be a member of the community and enjoy the protection afforded by local police, you have to contribute to the tax base. I'm pretty sure that is what communism is.
I'm not 100% sure here, but let me offer a theory: You are confusing the abstract theory of communism (which is good, and used heavily in the US and most of the rest of the world) with the straw man image of communism created by western democracies during the cold war. That image is no more real than the idea that marijuana use causes terrorism.
I don't think there's any deep complexity here.
First off, the GPL is RMS's. It is no more possible for RMS to ruin the GPL than it is for humans to destroy the Earth. The Earth is the Earth. It may not support human life, but it will be just fine even if we kill ourselves. Likewise, the GPL is what RMS wants it to be. He wants it to be a tool for social change. That renders it incompatible with some other people's goals. So what? It's his work. He can do with it as he pleases. Furthermore, the GPL is GPL'd. If Forbes doesn't like it, they can write a derivative; the Forbes Public License. Many have.
Second, ummm, geee - Forbes doesn't grasp the GPL?!? I'm shocked! Really, I'm so stunned you could knock me over with a sledgehammer. Forbes is an outstanding journal of capitalism. The GPL is one of the foremost modern examples of successful communism. Capitalism is a good theory. Communism is a good theory. But they're not exactly compatible (or, IMO, practical) when taken as religion. Is it any surprise that Forbes not only fails to understand the purpose of the GPL and it's creator, but villifies it and him? If they had known the GPLv2 existed before Linux became one of the three most installed operating systems in history, you can bet your last dollar they would have villified it as well.
You want something shocking, read the article about the IE team sending a cake to the Firefox team. That is very cool, and at least somewhat surprising. Coke claiming Pepsi is bad? What do you expect?
Is the GPLv3 going to be as successful as the GPLv2? Well, it took 20 years for the GPL to get to the point where a magazine like Forbes wouldn't scoff at it as utterly impractical hippy idealism. Most people don't understand why DRM is a bad idea - hell most of them don't even know what DRM is. It'll probably be another 10 years before we can even begin to judge the value of the GPLv3. Anyone claiming to have the answer today is either a snake-oil vendor or, as in this case with Forbes, a religious zealot.
If, say, a coder makes something that has a high impact on company productivity he might go - probably - unnoticed. If a sales guy/gal makes a big sale, (s)he normally is a hero. That is, at least, what I tend to see.
There is one significant place where this is the opposite of the truth. The darling of the business world. Google. But it's all lip service. We talk about emulating Google at my corporation, but it always comes out as, "Lots of good ideas there - but we need more management control, and we can't shift the power/compensation structure."
Hey, if any of the people running these bot nets is reading this, can you get in touch with me? I'd like to get the aggregated personal tax return information for the past thirty years or so, so I can do a fact-based analysis of shifts in wealth distribution. Thanks in advance.
Clearly what we need in response to this new threat is more laws. We must outlaw things so that our children can be protected from these online predators. And while we may not be sure exactly what to outlaw, surely we can start by outlawing things that are new or used by strange people. It may not solve the problem, but we can't know for sure until we start outlawing things. In this new world of threats that have never been seen before, we have to have the courage to pass laws before we know what is wrong. The only other option is to wait until after the ambiguous threat has caused the damage it may or may not intend to cause. We simply cannot stand idly by and let that maybe happen.
They've got no room to be griping if they do.
But they're not griping about the policy, are they? They're pissed about the timing, because it may set Etch back and Mozilla has refused to defer the matter, but they're willing to take the trademark and logo off.
Just s/Debian/Mozilla and you have the exact reason the Mozilla people are protecting their image. For shame, Debian.
... has repeatedly said that every patch that the distribution applies must be approved by the Mozilla Corporation ahead of time.
I don't understand. Debian hasn't said they won't obey Mozilla's desires. They are pretty peeved about the timing; getting Etch out the door in a timely manner has been a very important and public issue Debian - that is being jeopardized by this, and Mozilla has declined to defer the issue. But they're going to do exactly what Mozilla has asked - either get the patches approved, or stop using the trademark.
But Mr. Conner
Well, fine. But that means Debian can't use the Mozilla trademarks. They can't just say, "Oh, sure, we'll hold off on this security patch till later." I use Debian for production servers (though obviously without apps like Firefox installed). Holding security patches until Mozilla gets around to approving them is not a reasonable solution. The fact that I know that every security patch will hit my machine fast, usually within a day, is why I use Debian.
Debian's problem has always been that its handlers place users and the usability of their distribution far below very petty internal arguments intended to frame the distro as some sort of legal pioneer (Debian Linux vs. Debian GNU/Linux "controversy" anyone?). It's a huge turnoff to the non-zealots among us, and certainly makes for bad PR.
Debian's "problem"? Umm, I think that is what makes it Debian. Does RedHat have the "problem" that they focus too much on their proprietary components? Does Mandrake have the "problem" that they focus too much on GUI configuration? Does Gentoo have the "problem" that they focus too much on source-based builds? Does Slackware have the "problem" that they focus too much on being like Unix?
How 'bout this instead: Windows and Mac have the problem that they don't have a bunch of different groups of people with different objectives packing up distros that cater to different needs. Or, if you want a particularly dumb common complaint: Linux has the problem that there are too many distros.
Oh, and by the way; it's not that Debian just feels like being idealists. Their intent is for Debian to be the base platform for other distros - like Ubuntu and Knoppix. The best way to support that kind of extension is by having a truly free base distribution.
The report being released today -- which was largely paid for by Armey's think tank with some funding from NBC Universal and the MPAA -- takes the previous study, conducted by consulting firm L.E.K., and applies a model used by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis to calculate the potential ripple effect of those lost sales, factoring in lost jobs, worker earnings and tax revenue.
It's called, "Velocity of Money." It is econ 101 (literally - it was in my first econ class at a mediocre state school). Anyone who knows anything about formal economics knows about the velocity of money. Unfortunately, that probably means noone in congress will know about it.
Velocity of Money on Wikipedia
But it sure would be satisfying to hear a Senator say, "You brought us this? How much did you spend on this? We already know about the velocity of money. I could have explained it to you in 3 minutes. I mean, most people don't know about this because they don't have to, but understanding economics is, to put it lightly, important in your field. You mock your customers with your ineptitude."
It is the player's choice to kill, or rob, or rape, or maim. Just like in real life. I can ask you to do something vile and reprehensible, but it is always your choice as to whether or not you will comply.
No kidding. I have played thousands of hours of first person shooters, including nearly one hundred hours of GTA:SA. Yet, oddly enough, I still have never had a desire to kill anyone. I can't explain why, it's just not something that ever interested me. At the same time, I don't have a problem with people who kill for good reasons - the Allied soldiers in WW-II come to mind as iconic examples - but it's just not my thing. Having spent a great deal of time engrossed in the very behavior this suit villifies, I cannot comprehend how a game could change my lack of desire to kill - or how not playing those games could defer an unhealthy mind's desire to kill.
He refrains from more PTR activity, he claims, because it's no good for advertisers, no good for Google, no good for Yahoo.
Ahh yes, this reminds me of my days as a mercenary for hire. See, I was a moralist hitman. I flatly refused to stab people to death. If someone asked, I'd tell them, "Look, I shoot them - 2 to the body, one to the head - or the deal's off. Stabbing people to death is bad for business."
Say Kiss, if you're reading this; do the world a favor and step in front of a bus when you get a chance. Your ad sites are not content, they are pollution.
The study focused on 5,300 graduate students in Canada and the US and concluded that the biggest cheaters were business students -- 56% of them admitted to copying papers, plagiarizing, etc. The author of the study said, 'The typical comment is that what's important is getting the job done. How you get it done is less important. You'll have business students saying all I'm doing is emulating the behavior I'll need when I get out in the real world.
The study must have been done on students in the first half of their business degree, and the second half must be the part where they teach, "Always lie about cheating."
He never said anything about apple. You added that yourself and you should have noted that you did.
Here is his entire post:
It seems to me that if you create a format called "PlaysForSure", it should actually "Play for Sure". OTherwise your customers might - oh, I don't know - lose confidence in your ability to compete in the market? Instead, they'll go to a certain competitor that does "Play for Sure" despite not advertising such?
It's almost as if Microsoft is reading Slashdot. Their new business plan is:
1. Create a format called "PlaysForSure"
2. Make certain that it doesn't "Play for Sure"
3. Cede 95% of the market to Apple
4. ???
5. PROFIT!
See the line that begins with "3."
lose confidence in your ability to compete in the market? Instead, they'll go to a certain competitor that does "Play for Sure"...to Apple
Wha?!?
A blatant demonstration of exactly why DRM is an extaordinarily bad deal for the user, and the answer you reach is, "People will switch to the other mass market DRM"?
Wow. The worst part is, assuming any of the unwashed masses even notice, you're probably right.
The first wearable computer was used for this from 1961 to 1966. When it wasn't bugged, it worked well. The project started at MIT in 1955. I thought there was a link to Bill Gates also, but I can't find that part.
Here's the paper.
You don't really think the bank is going to create money to pay for the losses, do you? Make no mistake about it--banks, like every other convenient, abstract legal fiction--don't pay for anything. Individuals pay for things.
While that is true enough, it only pushes the question further back. Should/will the individuals who ultimately pay be the stupid customers, all customers, the shareholders, or the payroll recipients? Looking at it in an abstract sense, phishing is an expense. When expenses for a corporation increase, it reduces profit, increases losses, or first one, then the other. In the case of most banks today, it would reduce profits. The bank can shift that expense directly to the customers that cause the expense (like when you buy add-ons to your car), they can spread it across all customers (like insurance), or they can reduce payroll (or some other expense - which just repeats this process at some other company). If they do none of those things, profits decline and the shareholder pays.
You are making the mistaken assumption that this is a free market with perfect information, and that all prices therefore have reached market equilibrium. In a heavily regulated and initial-investment-heavy field like banking, it is not remotely a free market. Even if it were, the idea that there is anything like perfect information available is laughable. Simple example: Ads for "Totally Free Checking(*)."
Oh, and BTW, the opposite of your statement is also true. Individuals never pay for anything, it is always some abstract entity that pays. Either through higher wages, dividends, lower taxes, welfare, whatever. The money that individuals spend always comes from some non-individual entity. People don't just print money up in their basement. For more detail, see "Velocity of Money." Fiat money is a medium for trade, its entire purpose is to flow through individuals and entities. Wherever you draw the line and say, "this is the official starting point", that is where the money "comes from." But it is no more true than saying water comes from clouds or water comes from oceans.
* See website for details! (details include: 'Totally Free' in this context means 'lots of fees.') Yes, that is hyperbole for levity, but the truth is not that much better.
I'm thinking if Apple had a choice, they would not put DRM onto their files.
What? If they had a choice? Umm, newsflash: They have a choice. There is a side effect to that choice, but choosing to do something that is wrong because you make money at it is not the same as not having a choice.
Wish I had mod points. A more patriotic (in the sense imagined by the men who risked or lost their lives in 1776) statement I cannot imagine.
even though he twice swore to defend it.
Thrice. He was an officer "in" (didn't actually show up much) the "military" (the "champagne brigade" of the Texas National Guard).
because I'm convinced that the "good guys" (and we ARE them, by & large) cannot win against an insidious, merciless, and determined enemy by being Dudley Do-Right and playing with one hand tied behind their back.
What are we fighting for? If we stop being Dudley Do Right, do we not stop being America? Aren't our Constitution and Bill of Rights the very things that give us the right to look down our noses at Afghanistan? If we stop being good, then the only right we have to power is the fact that we have more bombs and money. That was Saddam's reason for having power in Iraq. Our power is not an end, it is a means.
I couldn't care LESS if the government is reading my emails, listening to my telephone calls, or keeping me under direct surveillance, aside from being annoyed that they're wasting their time. Yawn.
What if Hillary Clinton becomes president in 10 years or so, and she decides the right to keep and bear arms is making law enforcement too dangerous? Would you still be so comfortable with the executive having this much power?
I fail to see why anyone is happy having rice with unintentional, random genetic changes (i.e. natural rice) and concerned over intentional changes.
Do you want to see, or are you saying you choose not to see?
If the former, the answer is simple; rate of change. Leaving aside the patent issue (people getting sued because the pollen blown on the wind fertilized their crop), there is the problem of sudden introduction of a new species. When a new species evolves over time, it places gradual pressures on the ecosystem around it. The other biologicals in the environment, when put under such pressure, have time to smoothly adapt. It has worked pretty well by and large - large scale die-offs are pretty rare. But then, so are sudden introductions of new species (historically speaking). Dramatic mutations are usually lethal, and distant migrations were difficult until recently. Within the past thousand years or so, however, we have had a number of them. Not GM, but things like zebra mussells and rabbits in Australia. Those sudden introductions shock the ecosystem. Those shocks can make the planet, or portions of it, less hospitable to us.
It's not about GM per se (at least not on any rational level), it's about the rate of change exceeding the ecosystem's ability to smoothly adapt.
why are you singling the usa out for accountability for what every country is guilty of?
There's a difference between being guilty and just doing something. Doing something is just doing it. Being guilty is doing it when it violates your principles. The USA's founding principles are entirely about equality in the eyes of the government. The UK (for example) has the House of Lords and a deeply ingrained class system. Titled people in the UK are supposed to be entitled to better treatment. In the USA, unequal treatment is a violation of the fundamental principles of our system of government. When the UK does it, they just do it. When the US does it, we are guilty.
But if they are thinking GPL way, ... outcomes are presented for public use but you are not allowed use it, even though they paid for a portion of it;
GPL covers only redistribution without providing source, not use. Proprietary software has all the same restrictions, and many more. You can read more about it, including seeing the actual license (something you apparently have not done), at http://www.fsf.org/
Although she does have a point that 'open source' is a development model,
No she doesn't. Not it is not. It is a collection of software licenses.
Well, Alaska was bought by the feds, so the feds still own my house here?
Was the house there when the Fed bought Alaska? If so, and noone has yet bought it from the Fed, then the answer is at least, "maybe."
I hate to think I spent all that money for something I don't own.
Ahh, I see. So you bought your house. That would make it yours as far as I know.
Did Alaska buy the oil fields? Did Alaska buy the mineral rights? Are we talking about pumping from federal land, state land, or private land?
If you can't answer those questions, that's fine, simply say, "I don't know." I don't know either.
Alaska pays more to the feds than it receives. Period. The report is wrong, and I'm telling you why.
No, you're not. You're saying, "the Fed doesn't own my house in Alaska, therefore it does not own the mineral rights in Alaska either." That is not telling me why the report is wrong, it is a non-sequiter.