Well, I don't agree. Water, and food both *do* have a price -- somebody has to pay the cost of purification and distribution of water, and production of food. (On mars, someone's going to have to pay to produce air as well.) I can't see any reason why the person using the resources should not be the one to pay for it.
Now, if you're talking about food and water to sustain life, you're right that anyone should be able to get it. And they can, in our society. But beyond having food, water, and shelter enough to survive, I think that people should be responsible to work and earn the money if they want any luxuries.
Just out of curiousity, if the ocean levels rose 15-20 cm in 100 years, how do you extrapolate and say that in the next 100 years, coastal cities are going to be underwater? Are there that many cities that are built at an elevation of 10 centimeters?
I don't think that the fault was with TransGaming; it was the Wine developers who chose the BSD license when they really didn't want it. Let this be a lesson to everyone: think carefully about what license to slap onto a project; don't just pick the first one you think of.
I happen to like (and use) the BSD-style license; but if you want to guarantee that people 'give back', you need to use a GPL-style license. Those in the Wine project apparently learned that lesson the hard way.
I wouldn't. I was just pointing out that, rather than have somebody tell me what contracts I am/am not allowed to make, I would prefer the freedom to vote with my wallet instead. I find the idea that you can weasel out of the terms of a contract after the fact by claiming that it's unfair to be repulsive. I try to stick by my word, and wish that others would too.
As for enforcement... don't ask me. I wasn't the one who suggested it:). I suppose that if someone was willing to put up with such a restriction, they probably wouldn't mind having a black box that reported when the car was on/off to the manufacturer, after which they could come and take your car away, as it says right there on page 4, line 377 of your contract.
How old were you when you read them? I was probably 7 or 8, and thought that the symbolism was dead obvious -- but that may have come from having a stong Christian background.
In any case, I think that banning books based on their particular moral standards is ridiculous. I think that the original poster was correct; the idea that anything with Christian ties should be banned from school is just as bad as requiring only Christian books to be used.
The same arguments could be made about any set of books more complicated than Dick, Jane, and Spot. Yeah, books may influence kids' thinking. (Just like TV, video games, etc.) That's part of the point of reading. The solution is to allow kids to read more, not to ban certain points of view until they're "ready" for them.
Well, in the software world, you have to agree to the licenses. (And yes, you could negotiate software licenses by calling the company, if you were so inclined. Before anyone uses the traditional rebuttal -- that many places won't let you return software after you've opened it, your first chance to see the license -- that's a seperate problem.)
If I signed something that said I wouldn't drive my car after 11, then I would expect to be held to it, and I would have no problem if the manufacturer enforced it. Same thing if I signed a paper that said I wouldn't resell my music, install software on multiple machines, or anything else. Although I don't know if click-through licensing is considered the same legally, I treat it the same as a signature (I don't click unless I really mean it.)
My problem with the RIAA's claim is that I haven't agreed to any license; but they claim that there is one.
No, I don't think that I own the 'rights to the music'. (I hope that wasn't what I implied, because that wasn't my intention.) I think that I've bought a copy of the music (which comes on physical media, a CD), and can't see any reason why anything beyond standard copyright applies. Just because the record industry talks about some 'implied license' doesn't make it real; as it's not necessary once I've bought a copy of the music for my own use.
I think you're mistaken about this 'implied right' thing, for books, CDs, whatever. There's nothing implied about it -- when you buy a copy of the music/text/whatever, you have some rights and some restrictions set forth quite explicitly (Title 17). The RIAA, however, wants to claim that there are more restrictions than have been set forth in copyright laws; it's my position that, unless they have you sign a contract, it shouldn't be legally enforcable.
(Looking at your post again, I think you may have thought that I was part of the crowd that says 'I bought it, I can do anything I want with it, including distribute it to anyone I want.' That wasn't my complaint; sorry if I gave that impression.)
I have a question -- although the RIAA keeps claiming that you only have a 'license' to the music you buy on a CD... what is this license? Do they have it written up somewhere? Are they starting to put shrink-wrap licenses to agree with on CDs? As far as I can tell, I've never agreed to any license, even implicitly, when buying a CD.
If they were to require you to sign something when buying a CD, I'd uphold their right to enforce their license. (Mind you, I'd vote with my wallet and refuse to buy CDs, but I think that people should have to comply with what they sign.) But as it stands, I can't understand how they have a leg to stand on by claiming that the material on a CD is only licensed to the customer.
Hey, I just wanted to say -- your post (and the other one you linked to) just about sum up my thoughts on the matter perfectly. (However, I've never been motivated enough to write out the full-fledged essay/rant that you did.) Good writing.
From what I've seen, RMS's views on software-related things are pretty much solid and well-thought out (though I don't agree with many of his assertions.) However, when he dives into other areas, his arguments tend not to be as good. (Presumably because he hasn't made it his life's work to deal with them.) I'd say that the question asked of him was simply to the wrong person; if it's not software, he doesn't really understand it.
Well... taking a look at that website, I'd bet that it's all fluff. A company that has the ability to create such a toy would probably also have enough of a budget that they wouldn't have to let a 12-year-old do their marketing. (The website has such gems as calling their product line "STT -- Super Thin Technology", and promotes a "paper lap top" that would be dirt cheap and The most powerful computer in the World, but has next to no actual information available.)
Although some moron moderator marked this as offtopic, it isn't. The statement that the Ottowa man was jailed came from the Slashdot headline of the story about it -- it isn't true, and didn't come from the article. (This was pointed out many times in the discussion that followed -- but obviously the editors don't read articles or messages.) The Ottowa man wasn't jailed; he was fined and given a year of probation.
Right. We know this from prior experience, because the US has always refused to pay more than 5% of the total cost of every endeavor that it's been involved in.
Be realistic. Even those who insist on calling the US names all the time generally wouldn't accuse us of being inactive. Should this happen, I would be willing to bet that the US would foot quite a bit more than their share of the bill (calculated either way that you gave above), and take charge of the operation to make sure it's completed. And when it was over, the US would say, "Yout guys all owe us one." After which everyone would go back to hating us.
Most distributions are "compatible". I download programs all the time without worrying about kernel version, window manager, or anything else -- only very occasionally do I find things that don't work immediately. It really doesn't seem any worse than under Windows. Most "commercial" programs claim to work under "Red Hat such and such", or something of the sort, only because that's what they've tested. But if you think that the amount of incompatibility we have now dooms Linux to failure, jump ship now. You're never going to change the fact that users of Linux have different ideas and preferences for how things should work.
As far as the control panel goes -- although I don't use them, I *know* that many distributions come with a configuration program to handle that kind of stuff. If you think it's easy to find on Windows, it's just because you've been using it so long. When I end up having to use a Windows system, it always involves long periods of searching through ambiguously-named icons, tabs, and menus to find the options I want -- assuming that it's there at all.
It sounds to me like you're rooting for the wrong operating system. If having only one distribution is the only way to make Linux 'succeed', then it's never going to be anything but a failure.
If, on the other hand, (1) Linux is not solely aimed at the "average consumer," or (2) the "average consumer" is capable of learning to use something that's different (not harder; different), then it (or something like it) will succeed. And it won't have to be a Windows clone.
Those who do manage to arrive to maturity with confidence, health and strength of mind, in order to reach such a state where abilities manifest with great power, also tend to have grown a million miles beyond caring what a bunch of juvenile Skeptics happen to think.
If that's true -- and it certainly can't be proven otherwise -- then they're welcome to their supernatural powers. But if they refuse to let their powers be tested under controlled conditions, and allow scientists to do repeated experiments, with everything that goes with it, they shouldn't be surprised when most people don't believe them.
You know, this seems to be a popular argument these days. "The music is crap, so I shouldn't have to pay for it." If the music, movies, and everything else are really all that bad, then why are you so intent pirating it anyway? Nonsense. You like the music, you're just too cheap to pay for it. At least stop trying to make lame excuses.
Would you be surprised to find GPL'd code in Microsoft Windows?
I would actually be quite surprised. Most reputable companies (even those who are involved heavily with open source) take a rather paranoid attitude towards the GPL. Not only do they not incorporate the code, they also discourage even using open-source tools in its creation, just on the off chance that some GPLed code would make it in there. Also, from what I understand, the Windows source code is available to educational institutions and such; I would think that someone would have noticed GPLed code by now.
"Hello. This is slashdot, calling to say that we're about to flood your servers with the legion of well-trained trolls that we keep penned up inside the SlashHouse. Would you be so kind as to call back when your release is complete, so that we won't prevent it from happening? Otherwise, all your servers are belong to us."
Not hard... but to do this, Taco would first have to admit that the repeat articles are really a problem. So, instead, he'll just claim that "automatically checking the URL isn't a perfect solution", and refuse to do anything. (After all, people have asking for this for a long time; if they had any desire to stop repeating articles all the time, they'd have already done it.)
No, by free he meant Costing nothing; gratuitous. (As I'm sure you were well aware.) Honestly, this habit of claiming that "free" always means Stallman's definition rather than the definition than almost everyone else automatically thinks of is rather ridiculous.
Well, finally. Taco's been talking about doing that for years now (since the pre-kap days, at least.) Perhaps we'll now get respite from all the 'weird slashdot math' comments. (Of course, we may end up with people claiming "Excellent + 5 - 5 = Good", or some such.)
Well, remember that the doctor has to make a diagnosis, for all his patients, in a limited time. Someone looking to sue has time to do as much research as they want, looking for something. I can definitely see why this could be frightening to the doctors (Although I don't think that's any reason not to allow it do go on.)
I don't have any problems manually figuring out what I think is worthwhile on my system
Maybe you don't, but a lot of people out there would need it, regardless of whether they use Windows or Linux or anything else. Don't try to tell me that you don't know anyone like this. (In fact, humor aside, I'm fine with the whole thing. Paranoia isn't my thing.)
Slashdot Mirror
Now, if you're talking about food and water to sustain life, you're right that anyone should be able to get it. And they can, in our society. But beyond having food, water, and shelter enough to survive, I think that people should be responsible to work and earn the money if they want any luxuries.
Just out of curiousity, if the ocean levels rose 15-20 cm in 100 years, how do you extrapolate and say that in the next 100 years, coastal cities are going to be underwater? Are there that many cities that are built at an elevation of 10 centimeters?
I happen to like (and use) the BSD-style license; but if you want to guarantee that people 'give back', you need to use a GPL-style license. Those in the Wine project apparently learned that lesson the hard way.
As for enforcement ... don't ask me. I wasn't the one who suggested it :). I suppose that if someone was willing to put up with such a restriction, they probably wouldn't mind having a black box that reported when the car was on/off to the manufacturer, after which they could come and take your car away, as it says right there on page 4, line 377 of your contract.
In any case, I think that banning books based on their particular moral standards is ridiculous. I think that the original poster was correct; the idea that anything with Christian ties should be banned from school is just as bad as requiring only Christian books to be used.
The same arguments could be made about any set of books more complicated than Dick, Jane, and Spot. Yeah, books may influence kids' thinking. (Just like TV, video games, etc.) That's part of the point of reading. The solution is to allow kids to read more, not to ban certain points of view until they're "ready" for them.
If I signed something that said I wouldn't drive my car after 11, then I would expect to be held to it, and I would have no problem if the manufacturer enforced it. Same thing if I signed a paper that said I wouldn't resell my music, install software on multiple machines, or anything else. Although I don't know if click-through licensing is considered the same legally, I treat it the same as a signature (I don't click unless I really mean it.)
My problem with the RIAA's claim is that I haven't agreed to any license; but they claim that there is one.
I think you're mistaken about this 'implied right' thing, for books, CDs, whatever. There's nothing implied about it -- when you buy a copy of the music/text/whatever, you have some rights and some restrictions set forth quite explicitly (Title 17). The RIAA, however, wants to claim that there are more restrictions than have been set forth in copyright laws; it's my position that, unless they have you sign a contract, it shouldn't be legally enforcable.
(Looking at your post again, I think you may have thought that I was part of the crowd that says 'I bought it, I can do anything I want with it, including distribute it to anyone I want.' That wasn't my complaint; sorry if I gave that impression.)
If they were to require you to sign something when buying a CD, I'd uphold their right to enforce their license. (Mind you, I'd vote with my wallet and refuse to buy CDs, but I think that people should have to comply with what they sign.) But as it stands, I can't understand how they have a leg to stand on by claiming that the material on a CD is only licensed to the customer.
Hey, I just wanted to say -- your post (and the other one you linked to) just about sum up my thoughts on the matter perfectly. (However, I've never been motivated enough to write out the full-fledged essay/rant that you did.) Good writing.
From what I've seen, RMS's views on software-related things are pretty much solid and well-thought out (though I don't agree with many of his assertions.) However, when he dives into other areas, his arguments tend not to be as good. (Presumably because he hasn't made it his life's work to deal with them.) I'd say that the question asked of him was simply to the wrong person; if it's not software, he doesn't really understand it.
Well ... taking a look at that website, I'd bet that it's all fluff. A company that has the ability to create such a toy would probably also have enough of a budget that they wouldn't have to let a 12-year-old do their marketing. (The website has such gems as calling their product line "STT -- Super Thin Technology", and promotes a "paper lap top" that would be dirt cheap and The most powerful computer in the World, but has next to no actual information available.)
Although some moron moderator marked this as offtopic, it isn't. The statement that the Ottowa man was jailed came from the Slashdot headline of the story about it -- it isn't true, and didn't come from the article. (This was pointed out many times in the discussion that followed -- but obviously the editors don't read articles or messages.) The Ottowa man wasn't jailed; he was fined and given a year of probation.
Be realistic. Even those who insist on calling the US names all the time generally wouldn't accuse us of being inactive. Should this happen, I would be willing to bet that the US would foot quite a bit more than their share of the bill (calculated either way that you gave above), and take charge of the operation to make sure it's completed. And when it was over, the US would say, "Yout guys all owe us one." After which everyone would go back to hating us.
I was run over by a llama earlier today.
As far as the control panel goes -- although I don't use them, I *know* that many distributions come with a configuration program to handle that kind of stuff. If you think it's easy to find on Windows, it's just because you've been using it so long. When I end up having to use a Windows system, it always involves long periods of searching through ambiguously-named icons, tabs, and menus to find the options I want -- assuming that it's there at all.
It's not harder. It's just different.
If, on the other hand, (1) Linux is not solely aimed at the "average consumer," or (2) the "average consumer" is capable of learning to use something that's different (not harder; different), then it (or something like it) will succeed. And it won't have to be a Windows clone.
If that's true -- and it certainly can't be proven otherwise -- then they're welcome to their supernatural powers. But if they refuse to let their powers be tested under controlled conditions, and allow scientists to do repeated experiments, with everything that goes with it, they shouldn't be surprised when most people don't believe them.
You know, this seems to be a popular argument these days. "The music is crap, so I shouldn't have to pay for it." If the music, movies, and everything else are really all that bad, then why are you so intent pirating it anyway? Nonsense. You like the music, you're just too cheap to pay for it. At least stop trying to make lame excuses.
I would actually be quite surprised. Most reputable companies (even those who are involved heavily with open source) take a rather paranoid attitude towards the GPL. Not only do they not incorporate the code, they also discourage even using open-source tools in its creation, just on the off chance that some GPLed code would make it in there. Also, from what I understand, the Windows source code is available to educational institutions and such; I would think that someone would have noticed GPLed code by now.
Nah ... that would be just too easy.
Not hard ... but to do this, Taco would first have to admit that the repeat articles are really a problem. So, instead, he'll just claim that "automatically checking the URL isn't a perfect solution", and refuse to do anything. (After all, people have asking for this for a long time; if they had any desire to stop repeating articles all the time, they'd have already done it.)
No, by free he meant Costing nothing; gratuitous. (As I'm sure you were well aware.) Honestly, this habit of claiming that "free" always means Stallman's definition rather than the definition than almost everyone else automatically thinks of is rather ridiculous.
Well, finally. Taco's been talking about doing that for years now (since the pre-kap days, at least.) Perhaps we'll now get respite from all the 'weird slashdot math' comments. (Of course, we may end up with people claiming "Excellent + 5 - 5 = Good", or some such.)
Well, remember that the doctor has to make a diagnosis, for all his patients, in a limited time. Someone looking to sue has time to do as much research as they want, looking for something. I can definitely see why this could be frightening to the doctors (Although I don't think that's any reason not to allow it do go on.)
Maybe you don't, but a lot of people out there would need it, regardless of whether they use Windows or Linux or anything else. Don't try to tell me that you don't know anyone like this. (In fact, humor aside, I'm fine with the whole thing. Paranoia isn't my thing.)