Here's what it says:
The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Seems to me you can just keep you software GPL2 if you wish.
Under the National Labor Relations Act: "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in [Section 7]."
Section 7 says: "Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3)."
Unfortunately, the NLRB is headed by a rabidly anti-worker board right now and Microsoft could hire the best lawyers to win their case. But if the system worked like it should, this guy would have nothing to worry about.
At the end of the article, the author talks about how he thinks the Chinese government doesn't know about this activity.
Actually, they probably condone it. The more web servers that are blocked from the Chinese people, the more likely they'll be isolated behind the Great Firewall of China.
a) bust your ass for the next 20 to 30 years building your company and its reputation so that it can survive for several decades and serve society and future generations well.
b) take advantage of your company's good reputation, become unscrupulous, and make an easy killing for yourself with the huge bonuses generated and walk away with bags of cash before the shit hits the fan.
Interesting thoughts. I would agree with this hypothesis, for the most part. I would just add that I think collective intelligence can learn, but that it probably happens at a much slower pace.
No, it starts with US and the realization the large-scale change takes massive and focused efforts by large institutions to make the change happen. You can't redirect a river with a coffee can.
You have a fundamental misconception about society and how it works. You are stuck thinking of humanity as only autonomous individuals. The truth is, however, in this particular case, humanity is much more like a a single tightly integrated, massive network. When one node goes on the blink, no one notices. The network stays the same. But when something comes along and forces millions of nodes to find alternate paths, well, that's when real change to the network happens. For examples, take a look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or something even more mundane like traffic laws.
Like a river flowing across a landscape, humans take the path of least resistance. What's really needed is the ability to build in negative incentives to unhealthy activities and put in positive incentives for health ones to change the course of the river. Is the system going to be perfect and fair? No. Is it better than the alternative? Absolutely.
Unfotunately, corporations have stigmatized collective action and regulation to the point of inaction. I hope we can break their spell over our thinking soon enough to make a difference. I'm very worried.
Actually, technology hasn't done any good. It's been a society that recognized that being a good steward of the planet helps both current and future generations and consciously decided to apply the technology to help clean things us. Quite amazingly, it seems to be a concern you completely lack. I hope, for our sake, you never run for office. Lead control? Bah! Fuel efficient cars? Who needs 'em, right? Let's be selfish and make money while we can.
It's nice to think we can just barrel forward secure in the notion that no matter what we do, we'll be able to pull out of our tailspin just before we hit the ground. But what if you are wrong? Your attitude is to just then say "fuck it, the cockroaches can probably do better?"
I guess that's an option, but not one I'm going to ever get behind. I'd rather not play Russian roulette with the planet.
10 men are sailing in a whaler on a whale hunt. The boat, being an older boat made of wood, it leaks a little. But after sailing about for a few hours, many men begin to notice that the amount of water in the boat seems to have increased quite significantly, much more than what is usual or expected. What should the men do?
a) Take more measurements and get conclusive evidence that their boat is actually going to sink before they can make it back to shore.
I'd take the time to debate you but unfortunately you spent so much energy thinking up clever responses that you didn't leave anything of substance.
Oh, wait, there was this: "So far the lifestyle *has* been sustainable. You're predicting unsustainability on the premise that technology will never progress beyond what we have today - like all alarmists. As if the status quo this moment is all we're ever going to achieve, despite the fact that the entirety of human history contradicts this notion."
And you are predicting that technology is our savior? On what empirical evidence do you base this conclusion on? Is there some paralell universe you've been fortunate to study?
Technology is only as good as those who wield and control it. Give technology to the wrong individuals and society, and you've got yourself a recipe for disaster.
Please go right ahead, stick your head in the sand, and hope for the best. I will be working against you and your colleagues at Exxon/Mobil, BP, and Unocal. You are already in the minority and hopefully, before it's too late, folks like you will be in such a small minority that you will cease to be obstacles to bring about badly needed changes a consumer society that's out of control.
You have put words in my mouth. There is no question the climate is warming. A large majority of climatologists believe human activity is playing a part. I never said it's 100%. You said that.
There is no questioning the glaciers are shrinking everywhere on the planet. There is no question temperatures in the Artic have risen about 4F in a very short period of time. There is no question temperature on Greenland have dropped slightly. All the evidence point to massive change in a very little bit of time. All of our best models suggest that CO2 can play a very large role in climate change.
Anyone who tells you they know exactly how much man plays a role is a liar. But anyone who tells you man is not responsible at all is a fool. All the signs are there. More and more evidence mounts.
If this governement made it a priority, and the people understood the dire consequences that could happen if we continue to ignore the evidence, our country could switch over a vast majority of our power grid to non-fossil fuels. Yes, it would be more expensive. But I, for one, would gladly pay $200 per month for electricity instead of $80 if I knew we would greatly increase our chance of creating a more sustainable lifestyle.
One other thing. Society clearly grows and evolves and changes. Otherwise we'd all still be hunter gatherers. Clearly, humans do have the power to change their world and yes, their own society. Don't believe me? How did Martin Luther King bring about so much change in so little time? How did women make such inroads into once male-dominated professions. These changes occured in a sociological blink of an eye. What's more the period of time it takes us to change gets shorter and shorter and our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and our world grows. In effect, entire societies become more concious of themselve and their own behavior. The Internet accelerates things futher.
Ah, yes, and those enlightened, free-market capitalists like Bernard Ebbers, Ken Lay, J.P. Morgan, Carl Icahn, et al understand that greed and selfishness benefit everyone but themselves, right?
What you call "platitudes" is actually your belief system. And obviously your belief system, whether it is "we can only know what we observer or measure" or "God is Great," will profoundly shape your behavior and actions. Quite a bit of change can occur when you question and analyze your belief system. The only way to alter your belief system is to get exposed to other ideas and a majority of those come from others, not from stuff you think up yourself.
Would that be the humanity that started the war and rounded up millions for death in Europe and Asia... or the humanity that made huge sacrifices to stop it (you know, the Allies? Mostly, the US and Britain?).
Yes, but sometimes the bad guys do win. Perhaps we survived WW II this time, but what about WW III, IV, V and VI?
It seems to me that technology, coupled with a cultural desire to accumulate stuff for no good reason other than to "beat" the other guy, is the problem. I agree with the poster above that there is something very grotesque about a society that endorses such a lifestyly that can best be described as gluttonous, greedy, and selfish.
Techonolgy might be solution, but not until we first infuse our culture with a philosophy grounded in reality and in sync with the physical world.
I believe---must believe, actually---that humans have the ability to learn from their mistakes. Now, I could be wrong. But it doesn't do a bit of good to believe that we don't learn from our mistakes. If I believed that we didn't, I would be a fatalist. But I am not a fatalist, therefore, I believe we can learn from our mistakes.
Do you not try to talk to friends, relatives, children about what is right and what is wrong? Do you not believe they have the capacity to learn from what you tell them and teach them?
Well, I have a son, he is 2 1/2. I do take the time to explain thing to him. How to talk, how to say "please," and "thank you." Guess what? It appears to be working.
So, yes, I believe people can learn and change based upon what others say and do. I suspect you do, too. Otherwise you wouldn't be wasting so much time here on Slashdot.
In case you didn't notice, change occurs whe individual exchange ideas, and communicate. Imagine if we were all silent? Nothing would get done!
I don't hold a gun to your head. I merely make a suggestion. You can choose to agree or disagree. Hopefully there will be more that agree with me than don't. Else I think we are screwed. And it is my responsibility to exercise my opinion and do what I think is right. You cannot take that away from me, no matter what you do.
Well, you might as well be a fatalist. Change takes leadership. Who told you to recycle aluminum cans? That's something you came up with on your own?
I doubt. Some took the time to talk (or write) to you and expalin why recycling aluminum was worthwhile. They didn't stay in their holes and not communicate with the rest of the world. They organized and they created change, and it changed you.
Ah, yes, here comes the hostility, the aggression. I want to offer a bit of advice: go seek some counseling and look to find where your anger comes from. It must be quite a weight on your soul. I am sorry for you.
You also show a fatalist attitude that nothing can be done. But you and I both know that gets us nowhere. How about hiring a President that will sign the Kyoto Protocol? May not be the solution to all our problems but at least it's a step in the right direction.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, is this supposed to be funny? Because if it is, it isn't, OK? Let's be sensitive and appreciative of each other. Hugs and kisses.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Seems to me you can just keep you software GPL2 if you wish.
No you missed your direct parent's humor. He was being funny, you clod!
Under the National Labor Relations Act: "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in [Section 7]."
Section 7 says: "Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3)."
Unfortunately, the NLRB is headed by a rabidly anti-worker board right now and Microsoft could hire the best lawyers to win their case. But if the system worked like it should, this guy would have nothing to worry about.
At the end of the article, the author talks about how he thinks the Chinese government doesn't know about this activity.
Actually, they probably condone it. The more web servers that are blocked from the Chinese people, the more likely they'll be isolated behind the Great Firewall of China.
You are an upper level executive at AOL. You can:
a) bust your ass for the next 20 to 30 years building your company and its reputation so that it can survive for several decades and serve society and future generations well.
b) take advantage of your company's good reputation, become unscrupulous, and make an easy killing for yourself with the huge bonuses generated and walk away with bags of cash before the shit hits the fan.
Interesting thoughts. I would agree with this hypothesis, for the most part. I would just add that I think collective intelligence can learn, but that it probably happens at a much slower pace.
No, it starts with US and the realization the large-scale change takes massive and focused efforts by large institutions to make the change happen. You can't redirect a river with a coffee can.
You have a fundamental misconception about society and how it works. You are stuck thinking of humanity as only autonomous individuals. The truth is, however, in this particular case, humanity is much more like a a single tightly integrated, massive network. When one node goes on the blink, no one notices. The network stays the same. But when something comes along and forces millions of nodes to find alternate paths, well, that's when real change to the network happens. For examples, take a look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or something even more mundane like traffic laws.
Like a river flowing across a landscape, humans take the path of least resistance. What's really needed is the ability to build in negative incentives to unhealthy activities and put in positive incentives for health ones to change the course of the river. Is the system going to be perfect and fair? No. Is it better than the alternative? Absolutely.
Unfotunately, corporations have stigmatized collective action and regulation to the point of inaction. I hope we can break their spell over our thinking soon enough to make a difference. I'm very worried.
Actually, technology hasn't done any good. It's been a society that recognized that being a good steward of the planet helps both current and future generations and consciously decided to apply the technology to help clean things us. Quite amazingly, it seems to be a concern you completely lack. I hope, for our sake, you never run for office. Lead control? Bah! Fuel efficient cars? Who needs 'em, right? Let's be selfish and make money while we can.
It's nice to think we can just barrel forward secure in the notion that no matter what we do, we'll be able to pull out of our tailspin just before we hit the ground. But what if you are wrong? Your attitude is to just then say "fuck it, the cockroaches can probably do better?"
I guess that's an option, but not one I'm going to ever get behind. I'd rather not play Russian roulette with the planet.
"As I said before, I'm damned glad that you're nothing more than an impotent clown."
Good job, Max. You've pointed out that there's really no point in trying to have a conversation with you.
10 men are sailing in a whaler on a whale hunt. The boat, being an older boat made of wood, it leaks a little. But after sailing about for a few hours, many men begin to notice that the amount of water in the boat seems to have increased quite significantly, much more than what is usual or expected. What should the men do?
a) Take more measurements and get conclusive evidence that their boat is actually going to sink before they can make it back to shore.
OR
b) Start bailing.
I'd take the time to debate you but unfortunately you spent so much energy thinking up clever responses that you didn't leave anything of substance.
Oh, wait, there was this: "So far the lifestyle *has* been sustainable. You're predicting unsustainability on the premise that technology will never progress beyond what we have today - like all alarmists. As if the status quo this moment is all we're ever going to achieve, despite the fact that the entirety of human history contradicts this notion."
And you are predicting that technology is our savior? On what empirical evidence do you base this conclusion on? Is there some paralell universe you've been fortunate to study?
Technology is only as good as those who wield and control it. Give technology to the wrong individuals and society, and you've got yourself a recipe for disaster.
Please go right ahead, stick your head in the sand, and hope for the best. I will be working against you and your colleagues at Exxon/Mobil, BP, and Unocal. You are already in the minority and hopefully, before it's too late, folks like you will be in such a small minority that you will cease to be obstacles to bring about badly needed changes a consumer society that's out of control.
You have put words in my mouth. There is no question the climate is warming. A large majority of climatologists believe human activity is playing a part. I never said it's 100%. You said that.
There is no questioning the glaciers are shrinking everywhere on the planet. There is no question temperatures in the Artic have risen about 4F in a very short period of time. There is no question temperature on Greenland have dropped slightly. All the evidence point to massive change in a very little bit of time. All of our best models suggest that CO2 can play a very large role in climate change.
Anyone who tells you they know exactly how much man plays a role is a liar. But anyone who tells you man is not responsible at all is a fool. All the signs are there. More and more evidence mounts.
If this governement made it a priority, and the people understood the dire consequences that could happen if we continue to ignore the evidence, our country could switch over a vast majority of our power grid to non-fossil fuels. Yes, it would be more expensive. But I, for one, would gladly pay $200 per month for electricity instead of $80 if I knew we would greatly increase our chance of creating a more sustainable lifestyle.
You seemed to have conveniently ignored the "if" in my sentence.
One other thing. Society clearly grows and evolves and changes. Otherwise we'd all still be hunter gatherers. Clearly, humans do have the power to change their world and yes, their own society. Don't believe me? How did Martin Luther King bring about so much change in so little time? How did women make such inroads into once male-dominated professions. These changes occured in a sociological blink of an eye. What's more the period of time it takes us to change gets shorter and shorter and our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and our world grows. In effect, entire societies become more concious of themselve and their own behavior. The Internet accelerates things futher.
Ah, yes, and those enlightened, free-market capitalists like Bernard Ebbers, Ken Lay, J.P. Morgan, Carl Icahn, et al understand that greed and selfishness benefit everyone but themselves, right?
What you call "platitudes" is actually your belief system. And obviously your belief system, whether it is "we can only know what we observer or measure" or "God is Great," will profoundly shape your behavior and actions. Quite a bit of change can occur when you question and analyze your belief system. The only way to alter your belief system is to get exposed to other ideas and a majority of those come from others, not from stuff you think up yourself.
Anyway, we've tread far off the beaten path.
Would that be the humanity that started the war and rounded up millions for death in Europe and Asia... or the humanity that made huge sacrifices to stop it (you know, the Allies? Mostly, the US and Britain?).
Yes, but sometimes the bad guys do win. Perhaps we survived WW II this time, but what about WW III, IV, V and VI?
It seems to me that technology, coupled with a cultural desire to accumulate stuff for no good reason other than to "beat" the other guy, is the problem. I agree with the poster above that there is something very grotesque about a society that endorses such a lifestyly that can best be described as gluttonous, greedy, and selfish.
Techonolgy might be solution, but not until we first infuse our culture with a philosophy grounded in reality and in sync with the physical world.
I believe---must believe, actually---that humans have the ability to learn from their mistakes. Now, I could be wrong. But it doesn't do a bit of good to believe that we don't learn from our mistakes. If I believed that we didn't, I would be a fatalist. But I am not a fatalist, therefore, I believe we can learn from our mistakes.
Do you not try to talk to friends, relatives, children about what is right and what is wrong? Do you not believe they have the capacity to learn from what you tell them and teach them?
Well, I have a son, he is 2 1/2. I do take the time to explain thing to him. How to talk, how to say "please," and "thank you." Guess what? It appears to be working.
So, yes, I believe people can learn and change based upon what others say and do. I suspect you do, too. Otherwise you wouldn't be wasting so much time here on Slashdot.
"Seriously, go live your own life, not ours."
In case you didn't notice, change occurs whe individual exchange ideas, and communicate. Imagine if we were all silent? Nothing would get done!
I don't hold a gun to your head. I merely make a suggestion. You can choose to agree or disagree. Hopefully there will be more that agree with me than don't. Else I think we are screwed. And it is my responsibility to exercise my opinion and do what I think is right. You cannot take that away from me, no matter what you do.
Well, you might as well be a fatalist. Change takes leadership. Who told you to recycle aluminum cans? That's something you came up with on your own?
I doubt. Some took the time to talk (or write) to you and expalin why recycling aluminum was worthwhile. They didn't stay in their holes and not communicate with the rest of the world. They organized and they created change, and it changed you.
That's what we all have to do.
Ah, yes, here comes the hostility, the aggression. I want to offer a bit of advice: go seek some counseling and look to find where your anger comes from. It must be quite a weight on your soul. I am sorry for you.
There was a recent article in the New York Times about this and now there is this article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1730079, 00.html
You also show a fatalist attitude that nothing can be done. But you and I both know that gets us nowhere. How about hiring a President that will sign the Kyoto Protocol? May not be the solution to all our problems but at least it's a step in the right direction.