The guys that wrote the Constitution also used "bestowed by the creator" language. Society today uses many synonyms that all work just fine in this context. God, Buddha, Allah, Nature, Random Chance, etc.
In other words, you have rights because you exist. The US was founded on that belief and the words in the US Constitution and the first 10 Amendments reinforce that (see the 9th and 10th amendments).
And a history class would be very incorrect (at least in the US) to teach anything other than the fact that those who wrote the founding documents of the US believed anything other than that our rights were granted to us by our creator. It is a historical fact that is easily verified; we still have access to the original documents. But yes, let's do stop teaching actual historical facts in history class so we can further eliminate any hope of ever retaining and/or reserving any rights to ourselves.
but legally they have been defined as the same thing so until you have a bigger army/police force/voting block/whatever, your definition does not count as much and most people working for a living don't have major issues with the concept of getting paid.
Given that plenty of people use DRMed media every day, then I think it is safe to say that users are demanding it. Maybe not all users but enough of them to matter.
Have you heard the saying that generalizations tend to over-generalize? "this is not a feature the user demand" is pretty much a fulfillment of that saying.
Sorry but your personal view is what others tried to point out as the advantage. The proponents claimed exactly what I wrote they claimed. Searching through Slashdot posts within the past 12 months find such claims.
Personally, I agree with your position on why most FOSS code has been exploited; that just doesn't fit what many proponents were claiming.
Fact: FOSS proponents extremely frequently in the past claimed that OSS was security issue free because of all the review of the code that was happening. Fact: The code shipped 5 years ago according to the story. Fact: The story is about a security issue that shipped.
Therefore, pointing out that the proponents of FOSS are full of shit because a bug shipped is not off-topic for a story about a bug shipping in open-source software.
I was simply posting that the argument about when the bug was first reported is irrelevant as the OSS claim is that all bugs are found and fixed before ever shipping.
I agree, in principle, that people (as individuals) should not focus as much on past behavior as on recent behavior but I also believe it is up to individuals to determine how distant is the distant past. Knowing how willing someone is to admit that they made mistakes is also very enlightening as well.
An example is that if someone is going around claiming to be a certain way and looking down on anyone who isn't that way and acting as if they have never behaved otherwise, then any evidence to the contrary is extremely relevant, regardless of how far in the past such behavior took place.
but this is open source and open-source proponents have always claimed in the past that the advantage of open-source is that the bugs are discovered by the thousands of pairs of eyes before they ship. So the truth is that this bug was discovered five years ago but not fixed. Either that or there is no inherent security advantage to open-source. Which falsehood have you been telling all these years, boys?
According to all the hype about FOSS, it should have been discovered by all those thousands of pairs of eyes before it ever shipped so it should have been fixed at least five years ago, according to all that hype.
So the "public domain" is not actually public but belongs to individuals. That is, if I place a work of art or code or whatever into the public domain, then I can later redact it from the public domain and demand that anyone who has copied it destroy their copies?
Why should any factual information that was once public be removed? How far does this removal from the public's memory go. Are individuals also supposed to forget that something happened simply because some other person wishes that everyone forgot? Am I supposed to edit people out of pictures I might have taken?
Sounds to me like the EU is the douchebag for not accepting reality. This reminds me of the old saying about politicians thinking they have so much power that they can require the sun to not rise simply if they pass a law saying so.
According to the legal definition, Yes, I am. I am also part of "the people" just like we are also part of "the people" mentioned in the preface and amendments 1, 4, 5 (as "person"), 6 (as "the accused"), 9 and 10. Care to justify why "the people" means individuals everywhere except in the 2nd amendment.
And email and phones and computers and dropbox didn't exist in 1789, either, so we should also not expect that police need a warrant to search them or tap them, etc.
I'm more inclined to believe that the moron is the person who can't distinguish between "arms" and "ordnance". A bunch of guys 200 or so years ago knew the difference, maybe you should learn it as well.
And I, for one, am positive that all the gangbangers and other criminals in Cali will be turning in their dumb guns and use only the legal smart ones. After all, criminals always follow the laws, right?
So is this a case of too much government involvement in "open source" things or is this a case of the government is a bit late and should have prevented this situation from happening in the first place?
"as someone who believes in a restricted federal government" that right there is your first mistake. It seems that most in these parts have dismissed you as some sort of certifiably insane whack-job based on that statement alone. My impression of the populace here is that the Federal Government has absolute authority to do anything it wants and must control every aspect of our lives and anything less is complete anarchy. Right up until they do so in relationship to a computer or computerized communications, then they have absolutely no authority to even know that such things exist. Except for they are supposed to be regulating the transmission of such data to force all carriers to not differentiate transit times based on the contents of such data. It gets a bit confusing as to when we have to much government and when we have to little. We should probably form a government agency tasked with deciding what the appropriate level of regulation is and another agency to convince us that they are correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, he would have been fired for having a political belief, which would make it a criminal act in the US.
isn't the point of the article that it was altering the ecosystem? Now how do we differentiate between harm and alter?
The guys that wrote the Constitution also used "bestowed by the creator" language. Society today uses many synonyms that all work just fine in this context. God, Buddha, Allah, Nature, Random Chance, etc.
In other words, you have rights because you exist. The US was founded on that belief and the words in the US Constitution and the first 10 Amendments reinforce that (see the 9th and 10th amendments).
And a history class would be very incorrect (at least in the US) to teach anything other than the fact that those who wrote the founding documents of the US believed anything other than that our rights were granted to us by our creator. It is a historical fact that is easily verified; we still have access to the original documents. But yes, let's do stop teaching actual historical facts in history class so we can further eliminate any hope of ever retaining and/or reserving any rights to ourselves.
but legally they have been defined as the same thing so until you have a bigger army/police force/voting block/whatever, your definition does not count as much and most people working for a living don't have major issues with the concept of getting paid.
Given that plenty of people use DRMed media every day, then I think it is safe to say that users are demanding it. Maybe not all users but enough of them to matter.
Have you heard the saying that generalizations tend to over-generalize? "this is not a feature the user demand" is pretty much a fulfillment of that saying.
Here is an example of just such a claim and it is very recent. http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
And on a different thread somebody was making the claim that nobody has ever posted such a comment.
Sorry but your personal view is what others tried to point out as the advantage. The proponents claimed exactly what I wrote they claimed. Searching through Slashdot posts within the past 12 months find such claims.
Personally, I agree with your position on why most FOSS code has been exploited; that just doesn't fit what many proponents were claiming.
Fact: FOSS proponents extremely frequently in the past claimed that OSS was security issue free because of all the review of the code that was happening.
Fact: The code shipped 5 years ago according to the story.
Fact: The story is about a security issue that shipped.
Therefore, pointing out that the proponents of FOSS are full of shit because a bug shipped is not off-topic for a story about a bug shipping in open-source software.
I was simply posting that the argument about when the bug was first reported is irrelevant as the OSS claim is that all bugs are found and fixed before ever shipping.
I agree, in principle, that people (as individuals) should not focus as much on past behavior as on recent behavior but I also believe it is up to individuals to determine how distant is the distant past. Knowing how willing someone is to admit that they made mistakes is also very enlightening as well.
An example is that if someone is going around claiming to be a certain way and looking down on anyone who isn't that way and acting as if they have never behaved otherwise, then any evidence to the contrary is extremely relevant, regardless of how far in the past such behavior took place.
but this is open source and open-source proponents have always claimed in the past that the advantage of open-source is that the bugs are discovered by the thousands of pairs of eyes before they ship. So the truth is that this bug was discovered five years ago but not fixed. Either that or there is no inherent security advantage to open-source. Which falsehood have you been telling all these years, boys?
According to all the hype about FOSS, it should have been discovered by all those thousands of pairs of eyes before it ever shipped so it should have been fixed at least five years ago, according to all that hype.
So the "public domain" is not actually public but belongs to individuals. That is, if I place a work of art or code or whatever into the public domain, then I can later redact it from the public domain and demand that anyone who has copied it destroy their copies?
Why not. Wasn't that the job of the protagonist in "1984"?
Why should any factual information that was once public be removed? How far does this removal from the public's memory go. Are individuals also supposed to forget that something happened simply because some other person wishes that everyone forgot? Am I supposed to edit people out of pictures I might have taken?
Sounds to me like the EU is the douchebag for not accepting reality. This reminds me of the old saying about politicians thinking they have so much power that they can require the sun to not rise simply if they pass a law saying so.
Except the states of California and New Jersey beg to differ.
except mother jones rarely has any actual facts to present.
According to the legal definition, Yes, I am. I am also part of "the people" just like we are also part of "the people" mentioned in the preface and amendments 1, 4, 5 (as "person"), 6 (as "the accused"), 9 and 10. Care to justify why "the people" means individuals everywhere except in the 2nd amendment.
And email and phones and computers and dropbox didn't exist in 1789, either, so we should also not expect that police need a warrant to search them or tap them, etc.
I'm more inclined to believe that the moron is the person who can't distinguish between "arms" and "ordnance". A bunch of guys 200 or so years ago knew the difference, maybe you should learn it as well.
whose permission?
And I, for one, am positive that all the gangbangers and other criminals in Cali will be turning in their dumb guns and use only the legal smart ones. After all, criminals always follow the laws, right?
Not that you really care but a simple search for John Lott, jr. will bhelp you out.
So is this a case of too much government involvement in "open source" things or is this a case of the government is a bit late and should have prevented this situation from happening in the first place?
"as someone who believes in a restricted federal government" that right there is your first mistake. It seems that most in these parts have dismissed you as some sort of certifiably insane whack-job based on that statement alone. My impression of the populace here is that the Federal Government has absolute authority to do anything it wants and must control every aspect of our lives and anything less is complete anarchy. Right up until they do so in relationship to a computer or computerized communications, then they have absolutely no authority to even know that such things exist. Except for they are supposed to be regulating the transmission of such data to force all carriers to not differentiate transit times based on the contents of such data. It gets a bit confusing as to when we have to much government and when we have to little. We should probably form a government agency tasked with deciding what the appropriate level of regulation is and another agency to convince us that they are correct.