I would like to clarify on behalf of the parent and the Internet community at large that indeed you _shouldn't_ want everyone to watch you poop. That is all.
I used to believe this was exclusively a characteristic of the Alliance till I rolled a Horde character and saw Barrens chat for the first time. Additionanlly, nothing quite compares to the creepyness of having a troll just out of the blue ask to be your internet boyfriend.
If it tastes good, I'll eat it. If it tastes different than slaughtered meat I reserve the decision to eat that as well. Furthermore I hereby confiscate the word 'humane' to now characterize what it is to be human. The human body has the flexibility to run on plant and animal matter. Should it prove to be capable of running on synthetic products as well so be it but that does not invalidate my humane choice to eat slaughtered animals. Personally I'm fine with paying more for meat or even eating less if it involves better treatment of the animals, less chemicals, better resource management etc. Heck I'm even willing to grant that some animals are capable of feeling emotion but that doesn't mean I anthropomorphize them and relate to them as fellow human beings. Part of being human is the choice to eat real meat. I submit as inhumane anyone who fights to remove that choice.
I tend to agree and I think that there is a place for both GPL and no strings attached code. The intent of the GPL is to encourage other developers to contribute to the open source community without furthering the ends of closed-source commercial or other proprietary endeavors. The problem stems from people not realising that the GPL comes with an agenda attached. Personally I prefer the MIT (X11) licence both for code I use and code I write. My aim would be to know that I produced something that helped someone out. The GPL aim is to encourage people to release source code they otherwise may not have and to give people alternatives to closed source software. I think both aims are admirable but distinct from one another.
I'm not sure I understand how the GPL protects against this scenario. As the malicious developer I can strip the license off the GPL'd code, say that I wrote it first, and be back in the same courtroom scenario you mentioned.
I don't understand how this explains that something public domain is not fully free. If I write some code and release it into the public domain how does someone else come along and take away that freedom without bringing down my website? If a person improves upon my code and sells it in binary form only I don't see how that hurts me or the community since they still have access to the original public domain code. I get where the whole open source movement is going in that they want you to pay not so much in cash but in contribution to the community but I don't see how that makes material in the public domain any less free, it's just a different objective.
For the people who volunteer their time and receive no monetary compensation that is fantastic but my point is that: 1) volunteer fire fighters don't always work for free 2) to expect that the amount of people who would work for free is always going to be sufficient to satisfy the need for firefighters would be naive 3) for the volunteers that do get paid for their time, it isn't all voluntary donations, tax dollars from some level of government are generally a large portion of their budget. I'm no expert, and there may be some departments that get by on pure donations of time and money, but it is by no means a one size fits all solution.
Volunteer fire departments may well be more efficient, but as this is a reply to the humorous parent regarding socialist fire departments I would say volunteer fire departments are no less such.
The term "volunteer" refers to the firefighters volunteering to be on call rather as opposed to full time employees, it does not necessarily mean they work for free. Volunteer fire departments still require funding like any service to maintain their equipment, facilities, etc. The source of this funding can be federal, state, or local governement as well as corporate or private donations. Regardless of where this money comes from it needs to come from somewhere and when the smoke clears if you didn't pay the balance then the community did in one way or another.
Absolutely, and I'm on your side in that regard but I think Apple, despite catering to artsy creative types, has no tolerance for variety. Even with the name-change people would know that it was OS X underneath. If the re-branded system failed it would still reflect poorly on Apple regardless of if they were at fault. As much as I'll get burned for saying so, if someone running a Windows OS suffers a crash invariably Microsoft gets bad press regardless of if it was a driver vendors fault or not. Apple thrives on consistency and they'll do their darnedest to make sure it stays that way.
If I buy a computer with OS X on it and the system is unstable or I have other issues with it, rightfully or wrongfully it affects Apple's reputation. Even in the open source world many people take issue with someone making changes and pushing the modified result without making it abundantly clear that changes were made by someone other than the official development team. Take Firefox for example, you can roll your own build but you aren't allowed to release it under the Firefox logo. I don't know what the specific EULA restrictions are regarding the allowed uses of OS X but any sane corporation is going to take whatever measures at their disposal to protect their reputation and bottom line.
Before we continue this conversation I'm going to need access to your source code to verify that you are not trying to corrupt me with your ideals. I promise that if I make any modifications I will distribute them with any clones that I produce of you.
The same way you maintain legal posession of your physical assets; with laws and enforcement of those laws. For ideas that falls under copyrights and patents. You are trying to make the argument that you _shouldn't_ be able to posess ideas by feigning ignorance. You have some of my sympathy in that I would agree that copyrights and patents are frequently abused with consumers on the losing side but everyone on Slashdot by now is familiar with this argument, you don't need to pretend words don't have definitions to debate this topic.
I tend to agree but more often then not a person saying "EvE is a PVP only game" is referring to ship to ship player combat. While I appreciate that this is not always the case the attitude in-game and on the EvE forums tends to support this view. My only point is that EvE was designed to be and is a sandbox. CCP states as much and it supported by the game mechanic.
I never really understood the attitude that EVE is a PVP _only_ game. CCP neither presents it as such, nor does the gameplay reflect it. PVP is a huge component of the game but it is hardly the _only_ component. From the EVE FAQ:
"You can trade to make a living, conduct mining operations, market your fighting skills as a mercenary, camp the spacelanes for profit as a pirate, conduct espionage and infiltration, focus on research and manufacturing, or perform increasingly profitable missions for NPC (non player controlled, run by the EVE system) agents. What you choose to do day by day is up to you. You can play alone, form a corporation (equivalent of clan or guild) with a close group of friends or seek entrance to any of the large player run corporations and alliances already established."
Personally I run R&D, invention, manufacturing, and work the market when I don't have much time to invest. I squeeze in a few missions when do have some time to kill mostly as an income supplement. The MMO aspect of the game provides me with a dynamic marketplace to work with and something to talk about with my buddies at work. I have played for roughly 2 years and have never even taken a shot at another player. EVE does not have the most exciting PVE content but it does have a lot of it if you know what to look for and if it is your cup of tea.
Sorry, my bad, I must have voted for the corrupt politician instead of the non-corrupt politician again. I really need to learn to do a better job of predicting what they will do in office based on what they say when they are running for election.
Ok, but Joe is still using Windows so the fact that Linux is free is kinda lost here. Plus, odds are he can already do the things he wants to do in Windows. Unless he is just curious with trying it out, why is he going to take the time to reboot when he is done playing his game? On top of this, you want him to buy a 'real' gaming box when he can already play the games he likes and has already paid for them. Now he has to buy a 'real' gaming box and buy a new copies of his games, that is for the ones that even have a port. I've tried Ubuntu at work and I have to say it is pretty nice, but I don't have any issues with my Vista at home so unless I feel like experimenting with Ubuntu, I'm not about to screw around with a dual boot. I don't have any issue with spreading the good word about Linux, it is the the aggressive attitude and the dismissiveness of any other option that does not involve Linux that pushes me away from that community.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to clarify on behalf of the parent and the Internet community at large that indeed you _shouldn't_ want everyone to watch you poop. That is all.
I used to believe this was exclusively a characteristic of the Alliance till I rolled a Horde character and saw Barrens chat for the first time. Additionanlly, nothing quite compares to the creepyness of having a troll just out of the blue ask to be your internet boyfriend.
If I had the whatsis I needed to mod this up I most certainly would good sir ;)
If it tastes good, I'll eat it. If it tastes different than slaughtered meat I reserve the decision to eat that as well. Furthermore I hereby confiscate the word 'humane' to now characterize what it is to be human. The human body has the flexibility to run on plant and animal matter. Should it prove to be capable of running on synthetic products as well so be it but that does not invalidate my humane choice to eat slaughtered animals. Personally I'm fine with paying more for meat or even eating less if it involves better treatment of the animals, less chemicals, better resource management etc. Heck I'm even willing to grant that some animals are capable of feeling emotion but that doesn't mean I anthropomorphize them and relate to them as fellow human beings. Part of being human is the choice to eat real meat. I submit as inhumane anyone who fights to remove that choice.
I tend to agree and I think that there is a place for both GPL and no strings attached code. The intent of the GPL is to encourage other developers to contribute to the open source community without furthering the ends of closed-source commercial or other proprietary endeavors. The problem stems from people not realising that the GPL comes with an agenda attached. Personally I prefer the MIT (X11) licence both for code I use and code I write. My aim would be to know that I produced something that helped someone out. The GPL aim is to encourage people to release source code they otherwise may not have and to give people alternatives to closed source software. I think both aims are admirable but distinct from one another.
I'm not sure I understand how the GPL protects against this scenario. As the malicious developer I can strip the license off the GPL'd code, say that I wrote it first, and be back in the same courtroom scenario you mentioned.
I don't understand how this explains that something public domain is not fully free. If I write some code and release it into the public domain how does someone else come along and take away that freedom without bringing down my website? If a person improves upon my code and sells it in binary form only I don't see how that hurts me or the community since they still have access to the original public domain code. I get where the whole open source movement is going in that they want you to pay not so much in cash but in contribution to the community but I don't see how that makes material in the public domain any less free, it's just a different objective.
For the people who volunteer their time and receive no monetary compensation that is fantastic but my point is that: 1) volunteer fire fighters don't always work for free 2) to expect that the amount of people who would work for free is always going to be sufficient to satisfy the need for firefighters would be naive 3) for the volunteers that do get paid for their time, it isn't all voluntary donations, tax dollars from some level of government are generally a large portion of their budget. I'm no expert, and there may be some departments that get by on pure donations of time and money, but it is by no means a one size fits all solution.
Volunteer fire departments may well be more efficient, but as this is a reply to the humorous parent regarding socialist fire departments I would say volunteer fire departments are no less such. The term "volunteer" refers to the firefighters volunteering to be on call rather as opposed to full time employees, it does not necessarily mean they work for free. Volunteer fire departments still require funding like any service to maintain their equipment, facilities, etc. The source of this funding can be federal, state, or local governement as well as corporate or private donations. Regardless of where this money comes from it needs to come from somewhere and when the smoke clears if you didn't pay the balance then the community did in one way or another.
Absolutely, and I'm on your side in that regard but I think Apple, despite catering to artsy creative types, has no tolerance for variety. Even with the name-change people would know that it was OS X underneath. If the re-branded system failed it would still reflect poorly on Apple regardless of if they were at fault. As much as I'll get burned for saying so, if someone running a Windows OS suffers a crash invariably Microsoft gets bad press regardless of if it was a driver vendors fault or not. Apple thrives on consistency and they'll do their darnedest to make sure it stays that way.
If I buy a computer with OS X on it and the system is unstable or I have other issues with it, rightfully or wrongfully it affects Apple's reputation. Even in the open source world many people take issue with someone making changes and pushing the modified result without making it abundantly clear that changes were made by someone other than the official development team. Take Firefox for example, you can roll your own build but you aren't allowed to release it under the Firefox logo. I don't know what the specific EULA restrictions are regarding the allowed uses of OS X but any sane corporation is going to take whatever measures at their disposal to protect their reputation and bottom line.
hmm... not to change the topic or anything, but which chan should I post a rule34 challenge on regarding an anthropomorphized Higgs boson?
Before we continue this conversation I'm going to need access to your source code to verify that you are not trying to corrupt me with your ideals. I promise that if I make any modifications I will distribute them with any clones that I produce of you.
The same way you maintain legal posession of your physical assets; with laws and enforcement of those laws. For ideas that falls under copyrights and patents. You are trying to make the argument that you _shouldn't_ be able to posess ideas by feigning ignorance. You have some of my sympathy in that I would agree that copyrights and patents are frequently abused with consumers on the losing side but everyone on Slashdot by now is familiar with this argument, you don't need to pretend words don't have definitions to debate this topic.
Icarus has found you!!! Run while you can!!!
I tend to agree but more often then not a person saying "EvE is a PVP only game" is referring to ship to ship player combat. While I appreciate that this is not always the case the attitude in-game and on the EvE forums tends to support this view. My only point is that EvE was designed to be and is a sandbox. CCP states as much and it supported by the game mechanic.
I never really understood the attitude that EVE is a PVP _only_ game. CCP neither presents it as such, nor does the gameplay reflect it. PVP is a huge component of the game but it is hardly the _only_ component. From the EVE FAQ:
"You can trade to make a living, conduct mining operations, market your fighting skills as a mercenary, camp the spacelanes for profit as a pirate, conduct espionage and infiltration, focus on research and manufacturing, or perform increasingly profitable missions for NPC (non player controlled, run by the EVE system) agents. What you choose to do day by day is up to you. You can play alone, form a corporation (equivalent of clan or guild) with a close group of friends or seek entrance to any of the large player run corporations and alliances already established."
Personally I run R&D, invention, manufacturing, and work the market when I don't have much time to invest. I squeeze in a few missions when do have some time to kill mostly as an income supplement. The MMO aspect of the game provides me with a dynamic marketplace to work with and something to talk about with my buddies at work. I have played for roughly 2 years and have never even taken a shot at another player. EVE does not have the most exciting PVE content but it does have a lot of it if you know what to look for and if it is your cup of tea.
Sorry, my bad, I must have voted for the corrupt politician instead of the non-corrupt politician again. I really need to learn to do a better job of predicting what they will do in office based on what they say when they are running for election.
Ok, but Joe is still using Windows so the fact that Linux is free is kinda lost here. Plus, odds are he can already do the things he wants to do in Windows. Unless he is just curious with trying it out, why is he going to take the time to reboot when he is done playing his game? On top of this, you want him to buy a 'real' gaming box when he can already play the games he likes and has already paid for them. Now he has to buy a 'real' gaming box and buy a new copies of his games, that is for the ones that even have a port. I've tried Ubuntu at work and I have to say it is pretty nice, but I don't have any issues with my Vista at home so unless I feel like experimenting with Ubuntu, I'm not about to screw around with a dual boot. I don't have any issue with spreading the good word about Linux, it is the the aggressive attitude and the dismissiveness of any other option that does not involve Linux that pushes me away from that community.