So let me get this straight...your point is raising the minimum wage can't be bad because when we raise the minimum wage the economy doesn't go to hell? Is that really your argument? You might as well say that monkeys like bananas so raising the minimum wage can't be bad. You need to connect your dots.
I don't remember stating the economy would go to hell if we raised the minimum wage. I said the middle class would suffer and there would be no real net benefit to the poor. Some poor people would make more money, some poor people would lose their jobs, and everything would get more expensive for everyone. This isn't an irrational belief, it is as close to a fact as you get in economics. The only real discussion is on the size of the effects, not whether or not they happen.
The only reason why the loss of jobs would be temporary is if inflation kicked in (which it would) and effectively lowered the minimum wage back down to a level where they would be worth hiring again. What raising the minimum wage really does is hurt the middle class by raising the cost of everything they buy without giving them any extra benefit. People who make a million dollars a year will be fine if they have to pay twice as much for a cheeseburger due to burger flippers being payed double what they are now. People who make 50k a year may not be ok. The minimum wage is a job killer on the front end and an inflator on the back end. If you really want to help poor people, a reverse income tax would be much more effective (although it has it's own set of problems).
If anything like bitcoin ever really took off the government would label it a good/service and start taxing it like it does gold and silver coins to maintain its monopoly position with regards to currency. That would still be better than dealing in a currency that is hyper inflating but the US and Europe aren't quite there yet.
didn't vote for McCain because he's a really old white man? And who voted for Obama because he's black? Yes, some people voted against Obama because he's black but probably not nearly 5% because most people who would vote against someone because they are black wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway (so this would not effect the general election). Democrats have their own forms intolerance and bigotries but voting against black people is low on that list. This is just a FUD piece published by a Democratic shill, a student trying to graduate, and/or a professor trying to get tenure.
Nope, you are wrong, this is from the GNU website as to why to use the LGPL vs GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
"The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs."
"Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it."
They state this as their strategy:
"If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries."
And from the FAQ:
"But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL."
You are technically correct in that we could use the library and not release our software and not release our source code. I don't know why you would make that point though (and you might not be), as it is useless. What would be the point of developing software if we couldn't release it?
No, I don't see why he's bitching about the license on something that he, admittedly, could write in a few days and release under a more permissive license.
Duplicate, unnecessary work is duplicate unnecessary work whether it takes 1 day or a year. I don't like duplicate unnecessary work. Yes, that is "just too bad" but it would be less bad if people used LGPL (or less restrictive) over GPL and I want things to be less bad. What does a person gain by releasing something as GPL over something as LGPL? The primary difference is that less people will use it. What is the point of releasing source code if you don't want people to use it?
This is...you being an outright ass.
Yeah, it happens sometimes. Particularly when I'm responding to someone who starts a conversation by acting like an ass.
I think it is hampering their efforts because they have a smaller community to work within and benefit from. A more lenient license would attract more people while I don't think it would put many current people off. It is mostly an opinion, I certainly could be wrong. The only good examples I have are from personal experience where my old company would never use GPL software because it could not release our entire code base but could use LGPL software and only publish the changes. One example of this is NASA's World Wind. It doesn't exactly use the LGPL license but the basics are very similar.
True enough. However, that doesn't really matter. People who will not contribute will not contribute whether it is GPL, LGPL, BSD, or whatever. I guess it really comes down to why you are developing open source software at all. If you are doing it to show everyone how smart you are but you don't want to actually benefit anyone, GPL is the perfect solution. If you are altruistic and want to create something to help people, then you want it to be as easy to use as possible and available to the largest audience (not GPL).
I agree that there is room for GPL software and there are some valid reasons for having it. However, I think it should be the exception rather than the rule. The open source community embracing GPL has hampered their efforts and restricted the support they could be getting from companies that have vast resources that could benefit open source software. Companies are much more willing to use and support open source software under LGPL (and less restrictive) licenses. Less restrictive licences == more people/companies willing to contribute == better software for everyone.
You seriously don't see what is bad about a million different programmers having to write the same, trivial code over and over and over again? It is flat out a waste of time and reduces the amount of interesting/innovative/truly productive things we could be doing instead. LGPL lets people share easy to write code so that no one else ever has to write it again. GPL generally makes code that will die in a hole somewhere because no one wants to work for free unless they are fine living in their parents basement.
The fear isn't that they might have to contribute, they have to contribute everything that so much as looks, smells, or hears anything related to a single line of GPL code. If I want to use a GPL library that (for example) has nice string parsing I have to publish the code to my entire multi-million dollar software project because of that one small component that I could write in a few days. That is completely ridiculous. The LGPL is a much better compromise in that you have to publish changes to the relevant code or module. If I use a nice string parsing LGPL module and add a few improvements, it isn't a big deal to share those improvements. I prefer the BSD license but at least LGPL is reasonable.
How could this be deemed insightful? It is a gross oversimplification and mostly wrong. Religion has waged wars against segments of science that involve the past and trying to ascertain what has happened. Prime examples are evolution and methods for dating fossils. Religion has left most (aka 99.9999999%) of chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, and on and on completely alone. Claiming that religion is "trying to legislate science out of the class room" is nothing but hyperbole derived from an obviously bigoted, intolerant person.
I have three dixie cups pointed at Gliese 581 and they haven't detected any intelligent life either. I guess I have a proof of concept as well? They'd better hope that their expensive radio telescopes can somehow compete with my much lower cost solution that achieved the same lack of results.
The only rational option when it comes to Gods is: If God wants me to do or not do something, it's up to God to let me know, stop me, or force me.
Lacking that, the only assumption that can be made is I am not involved with Gods plans, and so those plans should not concern me. If they don't concern me, there is no need to adjust my own plans for life around them.
I actually completely agree with this. That is essentially agnosticism which I consider to be the only purely rational position. All other positions (including atheism) require varying amounts of belief.
As for the rest, you jumped right back into assuming things. I never said I believed in any God/god(s), I said I don't reject the possibility of them existing because I cannot prove they don't exist. I also cannot disprove fairies or unicorns, so I do not reject the possibility that they (or something similar) could possibly exist. Admitting it is possible for something to exist is not the same thing as believing that something does exists.
No, I can also detect chocolate and bacon. Now that we have that cleared up, we have something called choices and options. We have thin bacon and thick cut bacon. You can go to a grocery store and buy the kind that you want to eat then cook it how you like it. I've never heard of someone cooking bacon in oil. There is also a difference between thoroughly burnt (aka black) and crispy (on the verge of burning).
Again, confusing disbelief with lack of belief. What evidence do you have that there are no teapots circling the sun? (I am assuming this excludes teapots on earth). What evidence do you have that a horse with a horn (unicorn) has never existed on this planet or another? Perhaps aliens placed tea pots in orbit around the sun as some sort of game (ridiculous but illustrative). Maybe there was some freakish mutation and a single horse had its main grow into a horn like structure. I don't believe any of that because I have seen no evidence of it. I also don't disbelieve it because I have no evidence that either of these possibilities never happened.
You are claiming you know something to be untrue when you have no evidence to back up that claim. A claim without evidence sounds a lot like a belief to me.
Actually, Bible colleges are incredibly introspective and address "controversial" questions. I suppose that is only one religion (assuming you group all forms of Christianity) which would still make the statement "most of the big religions" true.
Also, most atheists confuse "lack of belief" with "disbelief." Lack of belief is rational and not in any way equivalent with belief. Disbelief is in the same category as belief in that you take it to be true even though you do not know it is true. Most atheists fall into the disbelief category and have more in common with religious believers than they are willing to recognize.
Put another way, not believing in God/god(s) is not the same as believing there is/are no God/god(s).
Well, if there was some guy who wanted to piss in your meal and offered to pay $10 of your meal if he could piss in it...you might opt to just pay for the meal yourself.
MS doesn't do the crappifying, the OEMs do. Microsoft is offering a service to remove the crap that OEMs install on OEM systems. If you want the service, pay for it. If you don't want it, don't pay for it. This isn't a good/evil issue, it is a "is it worth it" issue. If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the OEMs for not offering a crapware free option (that would cost more).
Wow, really? When you put a tariff on something it's primary effect is to raise the price of goods and services in your country. Tariffs on coal and steel would literally make everything in your country more expensive and lower the standard of living for everyone in your country. That is bad. The raised costs of goods and services in your country would also hurt your other exports. It also encourages other countries to put tariffs on your goods and services which hurts your exports even more, costs local tax revenue, and destroys jobs. If your country isn't very good at producing something (which is why it has a higher price than everyone else), it should make something else. You would be better off letting those workers in the coal and steel industry find other, more productive jobs and letting everyone else benefit from the low prices rather than imposing tariffs to protect an inefficient industry.
and most carb rich, high glycemic index foods cause systemic inflammation. Particular ones involving grains, legumes, and dairy. Just go to nutritiondata.com and look at the inflammation factors. There are also links between chronic, elevated insulin levels (which high glycemic index foods cause) and systemic inflammation. http://www.usc.edu/hsc/info/pr/hmm/06fall/insulin.html
Slashdot Mirror
lol
I don't remember stating the economy would go to hell if we raised the minimum wage. I said the middle class would suffer and there would be no real net benefit to the poor. Some poor people would make more money, some poor people would lose their jobs, and everything would get more expensive for everyone. This isn't an irrational belief, it is as close to a fact as you get in economics. The only real discussion is on the size of the effects, not whether or not they happen.
The only reason why the loss of jobs would be temporary is if inflation kicked in (which it would) and effectively lowered the minimum wage back down to a level where they would be worth hiring again. What raising the minimum wage really does is hurt the middle class by raising the cost of everything they buy without giving them any extra benefit. People who make a million dollars a year will be fine if they have to pay twice as much for a cheeseburger due to burger flippers being payed double what they are now. People who make 50k a year may not be ok. The minimum wage is a job killer on the front end and an inflator on the back end. If you really want to help poor people, a reverse income tax would be much more effective (although it has it's own set of problems).
If anything like bitcoin ever really took off the government would label it a good/service and start taxing it like it does gold and silver coins to maintain its monopoly position with regards to currency. That would still be better than dealing in a currency that is hyper inflating but the US and Europe aren't quite there yet.
didn't vote for McCain because he's a really old white man? And who voted for Obama because he's black? Yes, some people voted against Obama because he's black but probably not nearly 5% because most people who would vote against someone because they are black wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway (so this would not effect the general election). Democrats have their own forms intolerance and bigotries but voting against black people is low on that list. This is just a FUD piece published by a Democratic shill, a student trying to graduate, and/or a professor trying to get tenure.
"The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs."
"Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it."
They state this as their strategy:
"If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries."
And from the FAQ:
"But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL."
You are technically correct in that we could use the library and not release our software and not release our source code. I don't know why you would make that point though (and you might not be), as it is useless. What would be the point of developing software if we couldn't release it?
No, I don't see why he's bitching about the license on something that he, admittedly, could write in a few days and release under a more permissive license.
Duplicate, unnecessary work is duplicate unnecessary work whether it takes 1 day or a year. I don't like duplicate unnecessary work. Yes, that is "just too bad" but it would be less bad if people used LGPL (or less restrictive) over GPL and I want things to be less bad. What does a person gain by releasing something as GPL over something as LGPL? The primary difference is that less people will use it. What is the point of releasing source code if you don't want people to use it?
This is...you being an outright ass.
Yeah, it happens sometimes. Particularly when I'm responding to someone who starts a conversation by acting like an ass.
I think it is hampering their efforts because they have a smaller community to work within and benefit from. A more lenient license would attract more people while I don't think it would put many current people off. It is mostly an opinion, I certainly could be wrong. The only good examples I have are from personal experience where my old company would never use GPL software because it could not release our entire code base but could use LGPL software and only publish the changes. One example of this is NASA's World Wind. It doesn't exactly use the LGPL license but the basics are very similar.
True enough. However, that doesn't really matter. People who will not contribute will not contribute whether it is GPL, LGPL, BSD, or whatever. I guess it really comes down to why you are developing open source software at all. If you are doing it to show everyone how smart you are but you don't want to actually benefit anyone, GPL is the perfect solution. If you are altruistic and want to create something to help people, then you want it to be as easy to use as possible and available to the largest audience (not GPL).
I agree that there is room for GPL software and there are some valid reasons for having it. However, I think it should be the exception rather than the rule. The open source community embracing GPL has hampered their efforts and restricted the support they could be getting from companies that have vast resources that could benefit open source software. Companies are much more willing to use and support open source software under LGPL (and less restrictive) licenses. Less restrictive licences == more people/companies willing to contribute == better software for everyone.
You seriously don't see what is bad about a million different programmers having to write the same, trivial code over and over and over again? It is flat out a waste of time and reduces the amount of interesting/innovative/truly productive things we could be doing instead. LGPL lets people share easy to write code so that no one else ever has to write it again. GPL generally makes code that will die in a hole somewhere because no one wants to work for free unless they are fine living in their parents basement.
The fear isn't that they might have to contribute, they have to contribute everything that so much as looks, smells, or hears anything related to a single line of GPL code. If I want to use a GPL library that (for example) has nice string parsing I have to publish the code to my entire multi-million dollar software project because of that one small component that I could write in a few days. That is completely ridiculous. The LGPL is a much better compromise in that you have to publish changes to the relevant code or module. If I use a nice string parsing LGPL module and add a few improvements, it isn't a big deal to share those improvements. I prefer the BSD license but at least LGPL is reasonable.
Yes, you shouldn't complain about something bad if there is an even worse possibility. That's like, you know, so totally true. *flips hair*
How could this be deemed insightful? It is a gross oversimplification and mostly wrong. Religion has waged wars against segments of science that involve the past and trying to ascertain what has happened. Prime examples are evolution and methods for dating fossils. Religion has left most (aka 99.9999999%) of chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, and on and on completely alone. Claiming that religion is "trying to legislate science out of the class room" is nothing but hyperbole derived from an obviously bigoted, intolerant person.
I have three dixie cups pointed at Gliese 581 and they haven't detected any intelligent life either. I guess I have a proof of concept as well? They'd better hope that their expensive radio telescopes can somehow compete with my much lower cost solution that achieved the same lack of results.
The only rational option when it comes to Gods is: If God wants me to do or not do something, it's up to God to let me know, stop me, or force me. Lacking that, the only assumption that can be made is I am not involved with Gods plans, and so those plans should not concern me. If they don't concern me, there is no need to adjust my own plans for life around them.
I actually completely agree with this. That is essentially agnosticism which I consider to be the only purely rational position. All other positions (including atheism) require varying amounts of belief.
As for the rest, you jumped right back into assuming things. I never said I believed in any God/god(s), I said I don't reject the possibility of them existing because I cannot prove they don't exist. I also cannot disprove fairies or unicorns, so I do not reject the possibility that they (or something similar) could possibly exist. Admitting it is possible for something to exist is not the same thing as believing that something does exists.
No, I can also detect chocolate and bacon. Now that we have that cleared up, we have something called choices and options. We have thin bacon and thick cut bacon. You can go to a grocery store and buy the kind that you want to eat then cook it how you like it. I've never heard of someone cooking bacon in oil. There is also a difference between thoroughly burnt (aka black) and crispy (on the verge of burning).
My entire point was that I don't reject any gods as possible because that is impossible to know or prove. More reading, less assuming.
You are claiming you know something to be untrue when you have no evidence to back up that claim. A claim without evidence sounds a lot like a belief to me.
Also, most atheists confuse "lack of belief" with "disbelief." Lack of belief is rational and not in any way equivalent with belief. Disbelief is in the same category as belief in that you take it to be true even though you do not know it is true. Most atheists fall into the disbelief category and have more in common with religious believers than they are willing to recognize.
Put another way, not believing in God/god(s) is not the same as believing there is/are no God/god(s).
Well, if there was some guy who wanted to piss in your meal and offered to pay $10 of your meal if he could piss in it...you might opt to just pay for the meal yourself.
I dunno, is your time worthless?
MS doesn't do the crappifying, the OEMs do. Microsoft is offering a service to remove the crap that OEMs install on OEM systems. If you want the service, pay for it. If you don't want it, don't pay for it. This isn't a good/evil issue, it is a "is it worth it" issue. If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the OEMs for not offering a crapware free option (that would cost more).
Wow, really? When you put a tariff on something it's primary effect is to raise the price of goods and services in your country. Tariffs on coal and steel would literally make everything in your country more expensive and lower the standard of living for everyone in your country. That is bad. The raised costs of goods and services in your country would also hurt your other exports. It also encourages other countries to put tariffs on your goods and services which hurts your exports even more, costs local tax revenue, and destroys jobs. If your country isn't very good at producing something (which is why it has a higher price than everyone else), it should make something else. You would be better off letting those workers in the coal and steel industry find other, more productive jobs and letting everyone else benefit from the low prices rather than imposing tariffs to protect an inefficient industry.
and most carb rich, high glycemic index foods cause systemic inflammation. Particular ones involving grains, legumes, and dairy. Just go to nutritiondata.com and look at the inflammation factors. There are also links between chronic, elevated insulin levels (which high glycemic index foods cause) and systemic inflammation. http://www.usc.edu/hsc/info/pr/hmm/06fall/insulin.html