2) Exigent circumstances apply during hot pursuit, not just pursuit. Those residences in the immediate vicinity of the suspects last known location are permissible to search. The whole of Boston? No.
3) Such evidence is admissable in court. The only thing preventing prosecutions from anything any of those officers saw during that search is a lack of will on the part of the DA.
You overestimate how much control you have over your own life. Government is not the only force that removes control from you. Forces of nature, foreign threats, and relevant to this conversation, economic forces are also threats to control over your own life. The millions of people who fell into poverty after the 2008 financial crisis had no control over that. The lower 90% of Americans experienced *zero* income growth over the past 45 years, while productivity increased doubled. How do you think people are supposed to have control over that?
Obviously, in order for me to make sure ypu have a good life, I'd have to control your life.
I never suggested we ensure everyone has a good life. I suggested we institute a limit on how much poverty people endure.
So you can EITHER have the freedom to not go to school OR I can force you to get educated. There's no way I can make your life not suck without controlling your life.
But you can provide opportunities. e.g. free but optional education.
You can moralize all you want about who is taking care of whom. I'd argue that the rich are the true idle class, and basic income would simply help level the playing field. Being able to amass large quantities of wealth is a privilege granted by government in the first place. You say I want the government to be my mommy? No, I want the government to protect everyone, you just want the government to protect the rich.
But anyway, the real question is, what leads to a more prosperous society. By which I don't mean, what leads to the highest GDP, but what leads to the highest number of happy and healthy citizens. I don't believe that coercing people into work under the threat of starvation and homelessness is going to accomplish that. When people are free to choose the work they believe will make the world a better place, instead of that which will deliver the highest return on investment to a capitalist, the world will actually be a better place.
I live in Boston and I don't see what "freedoms" I just gave up.
If you were growing your own Cannabis in a closet, you might feel differently.
The lockdown made it a lot easier for law enforcement to do their jobs without worrying about crowd control, collateral damage, the suspect blending into the street scene.....freedom of assembly, warrants, etc.
The problem with this is that they can just make up a purpose, or have no purpose at all. There are lots and lots of laws with no articulable purpose, secular or religious.
Basic income guarantee. Electoral reform (preference voting) Abolition of copyright. Abolition of all victimless crimes (drug use, prostitution, all sumptuary laws) Abolition of all national security exceptions to the Constitution (exceptions to the Constitution themselves endanger national scecurity) Abolition of immunities. (prosecutorial, judicial, qualified) Creation of a special prosecutor to prosecute abuses of power.
And lastly pass a law that explicitly states that every citizen has a right to a government that obeys the law. Every citizen should have standing to sue the government if it breaks any laws. Far too many egregious violations of the constitution are unstoppable because no one can prove they have standing.
When you meet a libertarian, remember, the oppression of government is not what he objects to, it is that it is the government doing the subjugation and not him. Remember what the south was really about, it was about freedom from a government that told them to stop denying freedom to other people.
This also applies to the GPL vs BSD debate. People who object to the GPL want the freedom to deny freedom to others.
Or lets make it more simple. If I were both developer and publisher of retail software, what would be my source of income?
If your software is useful, people will pay you to make it. I strongly respect your desire to get paid for your time and labor. That's why I suggest you actually charge for those quantities instead of copies of sotware that are in infinite supply (and therefore of zero cost).
Nobody has an intrinsic right to code someone else wrote.
Everyone has an intrinsic right to the information they need to repair the devices they own.
Some developers want the right to earn a paycheck from writing and selling their code.
And nothing about respecting the rights of end users conflicts with that. Free software even presents you with additional opportunities to earn money fixing code written by others.
GPL proponents speaking in this way come off as though they are entitled to the hard work of others.
Not at all. Just entitled to recieve source code with it.
If they make any modifications, and redistribute those modifications, they have to make the whole thing available as source.......in order to ensure the end users have the same rights the developer enjoyed. How is it ethical to exercise your right to modify software and then deprive others of that right?
the end user does not care about the source and thus loses nothing they consider valuable when a BSD-licensed chunk of code is reused in a closed source application.
As an end user who does not develop, I care immensely about source being available. If source is unavailable, I lose the ability to have problems fixed by the community, or to hire someone to fix problems.
The right of an end user to fix the systems he owns is independent of the GPL. The GPL was created as a response to the infringement of that right. No rights at all derive from the GPL, the GPL derives from our rights. The GPL itself is merely a legal hack to work around the fact that we live in an oppressive country that does not protect our rights. The right thing to do is enshrine those rights in law.
How do you ensure an equitable return on investment in intellectual property in relation to physical goods when access to intellectual property is minimally fettered by scarcity--the driver of value in physical goods?
By charging for things that are scarce. The time of an experienced developer, for instance.
Every software user is entitled to these four freedoms: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Even if BSD code is used in a propertiary project won't the source vanish. It's still there and everone has still the same freedom to do whatever they want with it.
Irrelevant. The fact that some of the source is available doesn't enable the end user fix bugs in the software he actually uses. That's a violation of his rights.
GPL does NOT allow me to use it however I want. It actively removes the freedom to do certain things.
Specifically those "certain things" you are prohibited from are infringing on the freedoms of others.
The BSD license enables additional freedoms that fit into things people may want to do with software that is specifically prohibited by the various GPLs.
Which specific freedoms do you refer to here? Are there any such "freedoms" that don't amount to a restriction on the freedoms of end users?
In general, we can't do it and fulfill security obligations within the critical sector I work in.
Huh? The GPL hasn't stopped, e.g., GPG from being as secure as anything else out there. If you think the GPL prevents you from writing secure code, you don't understand the GPL. Here's a hint, encryption keys are data, not code.
If you can't publish your code and remain confident that your product is secure, then your product is insecure whether or not you publish code.
The GPL was created with the notion that every strata of software must be free and open. That's fine and lovely for Stallman but it provides unrealistic restrictions for commercial use.
You could say the same about all of our rights. The fact that a right is inconvenient for businesses to respect is not reason to abandon that right. You might as well say "That's fine and lovely for Lincoln, but it provides unrealistic restrictions for plantations".
Businesses and individual developers alike donate resources to these communal properties for the benefit of all in a share and share alike manner so that we can focus resources on our real goal--the software we actually want to write and sell.
So, go ahead and write and sell your software. Nothing in the GPL prevents that, and there are people who make a living today writing and selling GPL software. If businesses were restricted by law from infringing on the four software freedoms, it would be even easier to make a living writing and selling free software.
In Stallman's idealistic world perhaps everyone would be communist and no one would care about money and possessions because we'd just step up to a replicator and say "earl grey, hot."
What a ridiculous strawman. Protecting the rights of consumers is not communism. There's nothing more communistic about the four software freedoms than any of the other consumer rights we protect by law.
Slashdot Mirror
1) I would certainly refuse such a search.
2) Exigent circumstances apply during hot pursuit, not just pursuit. Those residences in the immediate vicinity of the suspects last known location are permissible to search. The whole of Boston? No.
3) Such evidence is admissable in court. The only thing preventing prosecutions from anything any of those officers saw during that search is a lack of will on the part of the DA.
4) Good.
You overestimate how much control you have over your own life. Government is not the only force that removes control from you. Forces of nature, foreign threats, and relevant to this conversation, economic forces are also threats to control over your own life. The millions of people who fell into poverty after the 2008 financial crisis had no control over that. The lower 90% of Americans experienced *zero* income growth over the past 45 years, while productivity increased doubled. How do you think people are supposed to have control over that?
Obviously, in order for me to make sure ypu have a good life, I'd have to control your life.
I never suggested we ensure everyone has a good life. I suggested we institute a limit on how much poverty people endure.
So you can EITHER have the freedom to not go to school OR I can force you to get educated. There's no way I can make your life not suck without controlling your life.
But you can provide opportunities. e.g. free but optional education.
Seriously listening to you guys talk about the TSA is like watching the episode of the simpsons where they institute the anti-bear patroll.
You realize the TSA *is* the bear patrol?
You can moralize all you want about who is taking care of whom. I'd argue that the rich are the true idle class, and basic income would simply help level the playing field. Being able to amass large quantities of wealth is a privilege granted by government in the first place. You say I want the government to be my mommy? No, I want the government to protect everyone, you just want the government to protect the rich.
But anyway, the real question is, what leads to a more prosperous society. By which I don't mean, what leads to the highest GDP, but what leads to the highest number of happy and healthy citizens. I don't believe that coercing people into work under the threat of starvation and homelessness is going to accomplish that. When people are free to choose the work they believe will make the world a better place, instead of that which will deliver the highest return on investment to a capitalist, the world will actually be a better place.
I live in Boston and I don't see what "freedoms" I just gave up.
If you were growing your own Cannabis in a closet, you might feel differently.
The lockdown made it a lot easier for law enforcement to do their jobs without worrying about crowd control, collateral damage, the suspect blending into the street scene... ..freedom of assembly, warrants, etc.
War is not terrorism.
The problem with this is that they can just make up a purpose, or have no purpose at all. There are lots and lots of laws with no articulable purpose, secular or religious.
Damn, I like the way you think.
Politician Pension Plan for life + they can never work for another person ever again; or be a consultant.
Also, peg the politician pension plan to the median income.
Assange has fled from the law enforcement over trumped up, politically motivated rape accusations. Like it or not, that is a factual statement.
Provide a guarantee that Sweden won't extradite Assange to the US, and Assange would be in Sweden tomorrow.
Charge whom?
The person or group who expects to use the software you write to make money.
If I cannot sell my software
Who said you could not sell your software?
Your suggestion would only work for one-off software wherein I am contracted to produce it
And what exactly is wrong with that? Every other laborer manages to be productive and be compensated for that productivity under that paradigm.
Basic income guarantee.
Electoral reform (preference voting)
Abolition of copyright.
Abolition of all victimless crimes (drug use, prostitution, all sumptuary laws)
Abolition of all national security exceptions to the Constitution (exceptions to the Constitution themselves endanger national scecurity)
Abolition of immunities. (prosecutorial, judicial, qualified)
Creation of a special prosecutor to prosecute abuses of power.
And lastly pass a law that explicitly states that every citizen has a right to a government that obeys the law. Every citizen should have standing to sue the government if it breaks any laws. Far too many egregious violations of the constitution are unstoppable because no one can prove they have standing.
When you meet a libertarian, remember, the oppression of government is not what he objects to, it is that it is the government doing the subjugation and not him. Remember what the south was really about, it was about freedom from a government that told them to stop denying freedom to other people.
This also applies to the GPL vs BSD debate. People who object to the GPL want the freedom to deny freedom to others.
Or lets make it more simple. If I were both developer and publisher of retail software, what would be my source of income?
If your software is useful, people will pay you to make it. I strongly respect your desire to get paid for your time and labor. That's why I suggest you actually charge for those quantities instead of copies of sotware that are in infinite supply (and therefore of zero cost).
Nobody has an intrinsic right to code someone else wrote.
Everyone has an intrinsic right to the information they need to repair the devices they own.
Some developers want the right to earn a paycheck from writing and selling their code.
And nothing about respecting the rights of end users conflicts with that. Free software even presents you with additional opportunities to earn money fixing code written by others.
GPL proponents speaking in this way come off as though they are entitled to the hard work of others.
Not at all. Just entitled to recieve source code with it.
If they make any modifications, and redistribute those modifications, they have to make the whole thing available as source.... ...in order to ensure the end users have the same rights the developer enjoyed. How is it ethical to exercise your right to modify software and then deprive others of that right?
the end user does not care about the source and thus loses nothing they consider valuable when a BSD-licensed chunk of code is reused in a closed source application.
As an end user who does not develop, I care immensely about source being available. If source is unavailable, I lose the ability to have problems fixed by the community, or to hire someone to fix problems.
The right of an end user to fix the systems he owns is independent of the GPL. The GPL was created as a response to the infringement of that right. No rights at all derive from the GPL, the GPL derives from our rights. The GPL itself is merely a legal hack to work around the fact that we live in an oppressive country that does not protect our rights. The right thing to do is enshrine those rights in law.
How do you ensure an equitable return on investment in intellectual property in relation to physical goods when access to intellectual property is minimally fettered by scarcity--the driver of value in physical goods?
By charging for things that are scarce. The time of an experienced developer, for instance.
Every software user is entitled to these four freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
No freedoms of an end user are ever restricted by BSD.
Unless that end user receives a copy of that BSD program in binary format. In which case freedom 1 and freedom 3 are restricted.
The GPL addresses that issue by removing the freedom for someone to create such a thing in the first place.
Infringing on the rights of others is not a "freedom".
Even if BSD code is used in a propertiary project won't the source vanish. It's still there and everone has still the same freedom to do whatever they want with it.
Irrelevant. The fact that some of the source is available doesn't enable the end user fix bugs in the software he actually uses. That's a violation of his rights.
GPL does NOT allow me to use it however I want. It actively removes the freedom to do certain things.
Specifically those "certain things" you are prohibited from are infringing on the freedoms of others.
The BSD license enables additional freedoms that fit into things people may want to do with software that is specifically prohibited by the various GPLs.
Which specific freedoms do you refer to here? Are there any such "freedoms" that don't amount to a restriction on the freedoms of end users?
In general, we can't do it and fulfill security obligations within the critical sector I work in.
Huh? The GPL hasn't stopped, e.g., GPG from being as secure as anything else out there. If you think the GPL prevents you from writing secure code, you don't understand the GPL. Here's a hint, encryption keys are data, not code.
If you can't publish your code and remain confident that your product is secure, then your product is insecure whether or not you publish code.
The GPL was created with the notion that every strata of software must be free and open. That's fine and lovely for Stallman but it provides unrealistic restrictions for commercial use.
You could say the same about all of our rights. The fact that a right is inconvenient for businesses to respect is not reason to abandon that right. You might as well say "That's fine and lovely for Lincoln, but it provides unrealistic restrictions for plantations".
Businesses and individual developers alike donate resources to these communal properties for the benefit of all in a share and share alike manner so that we can focus resources on our real goal--the software we actually want to write and sell.
So, go ahead and write and sell your software. Nothing in the GPL prevents that, and there are people who make a living today writing and selling GPL software. If businesses were restricted by law from infringing on the four software freedoms, it would be even easier to make a living writing and selling free software.
In Stallman's idealistic world perhaps everyone would be communist and no one would care about money and possessions because we'd just step up to a replicator and say "earl grey, hot."
What a ridiculous strawman. Protecting the rights of consumers is not communism. There's nothing more communistic about the four software freedoms than any of the other consumer rights we protect by law.