I think you've misunderstood what he was saying about the conservative attack style of talk shows. Which is fair, because I think he wasn't clear. Or I could be wrong. Anyway:
I don't think he means conservative as in Republican. I think he means a social conservative. Something akin to the religious right. And social conservatives absolutely have pioneered a certain attack style. You are correct, they don't necessarily have a monopoly on that style now.
Anyway. It would be really really hard to argue that Donahue's anti video game stance is a conservative issue. It's not. Tipper Gore pioneered this brand of bull shit. I blanch to think what Rush might have to say about her.
Good God damn, a lot of/.ers are full of themselves.
"Since I got a minor in a liberal arts subject
just because it was interesting to me I am fantastically well qualified to discuss this subject..."
"Face it: People from your field don't care about the fact that they lack the engineering know-how to wipe their nose with their sleeve."
Jesus. Almost all these high-scored posts need to think back to their days in school and realize that sure... they might have a great education... but some of the people that sat in class with them were stupid when they were born, stupid in class, and stupid afterwards.
Not entirely. Their whole Prozac-causes-self-mutilation thing was a bunch of hooey, and it definitely fell in line with their religious belief that psychology/psychiatry is evil 'n' bad.
I'm sure they believed what they were reporting, but they might have been influenced by belief. Maybe not. Iduno. I lost a lot of respect for them.
There is a text file about the licensing, which sounds real hairy. NAI released the code, but said that no one was allowed to use it. Or something. Phil was hoping other people might submit improvements. Lord only knows what PGPfone's destiny is in this new exchange.
It's kinda disingenuous to say, "If the government produces IP, everyone should get a piece," and then turn around and say the government can pay others to produce software for it that everyone won't get a piece of. If you're paying a winning bidder to develop government software that relies upon an Open Source license like the GPL, ultimately, taxpayer dollars are being spent developing non-public domain software.
Right. Except the reason it's unfair for the gov't to distribute code that is not in the public domain is that they can unfairly compete. They can levy taxes to support their competitive efforts. This is wrong.
If the government has a fair bidding process that is blind to 3rd party licensing, then there is no way anyone can accuse them of unfairness. A Redhat shop could win the bid, or a MS shop could win the bid.
I realize that we would all prefer our tax dollars went to GPL software. However, other people would prefer that our tax dollars went to their proprietary software companies. Neither of us can *prove* greater good. I'd rather not have the government deciding which of us is right. Thus, competitive bidding. The government should use software to fulfill it's mission, and it should do it in the most cost effective fashion available. Bar none.
Of course, for those of us with the long view, it's pretty clear that at some point in the future, most contract solutions would be cheaper/better using free software. We'll keep that long view to ourselves and hope that MS doesn't see.
I, too, do not mean to attack. Do you see how Gov't produced GPLed software might be objectionable, while contract-produced proprietary/GPL/BSD/whatever software would not? It's about unfair competition, not the type of license that tax dollars contribute to.
Yeah, I know. Still, it irks me as unfair. I realize that the Gov't probably wouldn't go the length of assigning their copyright to someone else, so they could probably never have their stuff included in a product like ReiserFS. Since Reiser requires a copyright assignment.
Thing is, I was under the impression that the government could not legally hold a copyright. Period.
What's this you say about "it makes more sense to release their patches into the public domain -- even if the derivative work, that being the patched product, must be GPLed"? I like this idea a lot. I just thought that the FSF types had said that patches *are* derivative works, and thus must also be GPLed. Have I misunderstood copyright law? Are the FSF folks out of their minds? Is this a debatable point?
Based on what I wrote, the government would not be able to produce something like SELinux and release it to the public, because it would require a massive licensing violation to put someone else's GPLed work in the public domain.
Similarly with Windows. The Gov't should not hack windows. That would be unfairly assisting MS.
Sure, the GPL is a bit of that. But it's different. Different in a way that makes it not ok.
Mostly: GPLed software is often copyright by someone. Correct? If the govt makes patches, like SE Linux, they have contributed to someone else's copyright. That is Messed Up. Hell, if they contributed to ReiserFS, then Reiser gets to modify that govt code and release it closed source, and no one else does. That is unfairly assisting the copyright owner.
Why is it strange to suggest that the government cannot have/contribute to intellectual property?
The government usually contracts out developement. If there were a proper competitive bidding process (which there isn't, I guess) then the winning bid would come from the company offering the perfect economic practicality. This could be either proprietary, open, or free software.
However, if someone employed by the government is doing the hacking, then it should *always* fall into the public domain. No trade off.
I feel like this solution nicely avoids any wasted tax dollars, and any unfairness.
I don't understand your question. It doesn't seem to relate to my post at all.
I like the "share and share alike" aspects of the GPL too, and I wish I could figure out a way to defend the govt producing GPL code.
But I can't. Just like I'd be pissed if (and I bet they do this anyway) the govt hacked proprietary software and allowed the proprietary vendor to sell the code.
The government should never produce intellectual property. Since the public owns the government, the public should own the government's source. This means Microsoft should own it and this means you should own it.
Exactly. Since the govt can't release patches to the Linux kernel under the BSD license, then the government should not release patches to the Linux kernel.
Second thing: What should happen to software that the government creates? Should it never be released to the public, left to sit and wallow as a waste of our tax dollars?
It should be released into the public domain. This is pretty intuitively obvious. If the government produces IP, everyone should get a peice. The government should never ever produce IP that's covered by an individual's or corporation's copyright. This is not compatible with the GPL. I really have to go with MS on this argument. If the NSA wants us to have a secure operating system, they should work on stuff with a BSD license.
My parents were hippies. Dad gave Mom an emerald engagement ring with small diamonds in the setting. They exchanged necklaces with azure bands at their wedding. Since Mom liked emeralds so much, once or twice a decade, Dad would get her another peice of expensive emerald jewelry. They divorced, just like everyone else, but diamonds was never a sticking point. Ok, I've got a better example.
A friend of mine proposed to his wife by going to a local jeweler and paying him a couple hundred dollars for the privilege of borrowing his emerald stock. He took his girlfriend out to dinner, pulled a silk handkerchief out of his suit pocket, poured 200 emeralds into a little pile on the table, and asked her if she'd like to pick one for an engagement ring.
She didn't complain about not getting a diamond. That's for damn sure.
Another excellent option is antique jewelry. If you have the time to do a lot of inquiry, and you stay in the same price range, you could wind up with a much much more interesting and stylish ring. An antique diamond ring, IMHO, would not be supporting violence in exactly the same way. And your girlfriend wouldn't be upset.
All that said, I can't tell if you mean what you say. If you know what your girlfriend would like, you're going to have to think of a way to make her at least that excited about something else before you take it away. She's going to get idiotic comments from her friends in any case if you can't afford some gaudy monstrosity. Figure it out so that she'll be blown away no matter what. If you're not sure, do more figuring. Ideally, she'll be blown away, and it will be affordable. But the affordable part should be the first to go:)
Your time machine would have to be able to travel back in time past the point of invention.
If you invented a time portal that would allow you to travel to other time portals, similarly created, at any time in the past or future, you would not be able to go back in time past the point of their invention.
Sure, perhaps everything would keep changing until all knowledge of time portals were destroyed, but that would have to occur some time *after* their invention.
However, if this discovery were possible a second time, then you could count on some other type of life form reinventing time/space travel at some point in the future. At which point everything keeps changing. I don't think it's quite as simple as the original poster suggested.
Re:Free Markets Require Competition to Exist
on
PowerPC Goes 64 bit
·
· Score: 2
Right. That's the point. I'm not quoting myself. Sorry about my homepage.
Re:Free Markets Require Competition to Exist
on
PowerPC Goes 64 bit
·
· Score: 2
Man, I hate it when trolls like you have a good point. Of course you're correct about morons talking about monopolies as free market perfection. But:
What, you're going to blame this fiasco on one age group being myopic? What generation have you picked as the culprit? I assume you don't mean your generation. How come the other more intelligent generations didn't have the foresight to not go along with the myopia and invest sanely? If they had done that, there's no way the myopia could have caused this turmoil.
You're going to have to lay the blame a little more evenly than that. There were/are a whole lot of shills in every age group. Jesus.
Re:No, Apple should continue to heed Intel
on
PowerPC Goes 64 bit
·
· Score: 2
That's funny, I have the 600 mHz ibook and I say that all the time.
Your L2 cache may have saved you this time, but PC laptops have been Fast Enough for a year or two. Sure, *now* Apple's hardware is all fast enough, but it's not like that's been a continuing design decision.
All that Intel talk was just talk. All this IBM talk is just talk too.
Nobody with insider information is talking right now. That means that nobody knows a damn thing. Everyone is simply surmising about what could possibly happen. And they could all be full of crap.
Re:it says more than 160 and Altivec=162
on
PowerPC Goes 64 bit
·
· Score: 2
NOBODY HAS SAID THAT APPLE WILL USE THIS CHIP. Everybody *suspects* that they *might* use it. But everyone is blowing smoke and guessing until we actually hear news from inside Cupertino.
IBM will use this processor in their machines. We have no evidence whatsoever that this chip was designed to be compatible with Apple software. It might be.
Uh huh. 19th century wasn't much better. And the first half of the 20th century was messed up too. If we want to talk about the land of the free, we only really get to talk about the last 50 years or less.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you've misunderstood what he was saying about the conservative attack style of talk shows. Which is fair, because I think he wasn't clear. Or I could be wrong. Anyway:
I don't think he means conservative as in Republican. I think he means a social conservative. Something akin to the religious right. And social conservatives absolutely have pioneered a certain attack style. You are correct, they don't necessarily have a monopoly on that style now.
Anyway. It would be really really hard to argue that Donahue's anti video game stance is a conservative issue. It's not. Tipper Gore pioneered this brand of bull shit. I blanch to think what Rush might have to say about her.
Jesus. Almost all these high-scored posts need to think back to their days in school and realize that sure... they might have a great education... but some of the people that sat in class with them were stupid when they were born, stupid in class, and stupid afterwards.
Not entirely. Their whole Prozac-causes-self-mutilation thing was a bunch of hooey, and it definitely fell in line with their religious belief that psychology/psychiatry is evil 'n' bad.
I'm sure they believed what they were reporting, but they might have been influenced by belief. Maybe not. Iduno. I lost a lot of respect for them.
No, no, no.
Sneak into the theaters.
Phil Zimmerman was disappointed that it wasn't being used by NAI, so it got released on pgpi.
http://www.pgpi.org/products/pgpfone/
There is a text file about the licensing, which sounds real hairy. NAI released the code, but said that no one was allowed to use it. Or something. Phil was hoping other people might submit improvements. Lord only knows what PGPfone's destiny is in this new exchange.
It's kinda disingenuous to say, "If the government produces IP, everyone should get a piece," and then turn around and say the government can pay others to produce software for it that everyone won't get a piece of. If you're paying a winning bidder to develop government software that relies upon an Open Source license like the GPL, ultimately, taxpayer dollars are being spent developing non-public domain software.
Right. Except the reason it's unfair for the gov't to distribute code that is not in the public domain is that they can unfairly compete. They can levy taxes to support their competitive efforts. This is wrong.
If the government has a fair bidding process that is blind to 3rd party licensing, then there is no way anyone can accuse them of unfairness. A Redhat shop could win the bid, or a MS shop could win the bid.
I realize that we would all prefer our tax dollars went to GPL software. However, other people would prefer that our tax dollars went to their proprietary software companies. Neither of us can *prove* greater good. I'd rather not have the government deciding which of us is right. Thus, competitive bidding. The government should use software to fulfill it's mission, and it should do it in the most cost effective fashion available. Bar none.
Of course, for those of us with the long view, it's pretty clear that at some point in the future, most contract solutions would be cheaper/better using free software. We'll keep that long view to ourselves and hope that MS doesn't see.
I, too, do not mean to attack. Do you see how Gov't produced GPLed software might be objectionable, while contract-produced proprietary/GPL/BSD/whatever software would not? It's about unfair competition, not the type of license that tax dollars contribute to.
Yeah, I know. Still, it irks me as unfair. I realize that the Gov't probably wouldn't go the length of assigning their copyright to someone else, so they could probably never have their stuff included in a product like ReiserFS. Since Reiser requires a copyright assignment.
Thing is, I was under the impression that the government could not legally hold a copyright. Period.
What's this you say about "it makes more sense to release their patches into the public domain -- even if the derivative work, that being the patched product, must be GPLed"? I like this idea a lot. I just thought that the FSF types had said that patches *are* derivative works, and thus must also be GPLed. Have I misunderstood copyright law? Are the FSF folks out of their minds? Is this a debatable point?
Based on what I wrote, the government would not be able to produce something like SELinux and release it to the public, because it would require a massive licensing violation to put someone else's GPLed work in the public domain.
Similarly with Windows. The Gov't should not hack windows. That would be unfairly assisting MS.
Sure, the GPL is a bit of that. But it's different. Different in a way that makes it not ok.
Mostly: GPLed software is often copyright by someone. Correct? If the govt makes patches, like SE Linux, they have contributed to someone else's copyright. That is Messed Up. Hell, if they contributed to ReiserFS, then Reiser gets to modify that govt code and release it closed source, and no one else does. That is unfairly assisting the copyright owner.
Why is it strange to suggest that the government cannot have/contribute to intellectual property?
Polarization sequence.
The probability of picking the wrong polarization is very very large.
The government usually contracts out developement. If there were a proper competitive bidding process (which there isn't, I guess) then the winning bid would come from the company offering the perfect economic practicality. This could be either proprietary, open, or free software.
However, if someone employed by the government is doing the hacking, then it should *always* fall into the public domain. No trade off.
I feel like this solution nicely avoids any wasted tax dollars, and any unfairness.
I don't understand your question. It doesn't seem to relate to my post at all.
I like the "share and share alike" aspects of the GPL too, and I wish I could figure out a way to defend the govt producing GPL code.
But I can't. Just like I'd be pissed if (and I bet they do this anyway) the govt hacked proprietary software and allowed the proprietary vendor to sell the code.
The government should never produce intellectual property. Since the public owns the government, the public should own the government's source. This means Microsoft should own it and this means you should own it.
Exactly. Since the govt can't release patches to the Linux kernel under the BSD license, then the government should not release patches to the Linux kernel.
I thought I was pretty clear.
Second thing: What should happen to software that the government creates? Should it never be released to the public, left to sit and wallow as a waste of our tax dollars?
It should be released into the public domain. This is pretty intuitively obvious. If the government produces IP, everyone should get a peice. The government should never ever produce IP that's covered by an individual's or corporation's copyright. This is not compatible with the GPL. I really have to go with MS on this argument. If the NSA wants us to have a secure operating system, they should work on stuff with a BSD license.
Yeah, but the high end cards are messed too. See the post about the Quattro3s.
Bluetooth earphone, dude. Stereo sound + bone conduction audio pickup. Wouldn't that be nice?
My parents were hippies. Dad gave Mom an emerald engagement ring with small diamonds in the setting. They exchanged necklaces with azure bands at their wedding. Since Mom liked emeralds so much, once or twice a decade, Dad would get her another peice of expensive emerald jewelry. They divorced, just like everyone else, but diamonds was never a sticking point. Ok, I've got a better example.
:)
A friend of mine proposed to his wife by going to a local jeweler and paying him a couple hundred dollars for the privilege of borrowing his emerald stock. He took his girlfriend out to dinner, pulled a silk handkerchief out of his suit pocket, poured 200 emeralds into a little pile on the table, and asked her if she'd like to pick one for an engagement ring.
She didn't complain about not getting a diamond. That's for damn sure.
Another excellent option is antique jewelry. If you have the time to do a lot of inquiry, and you stay in the same price range, you could wind up with a much much more interesting and stylish ring. An antique diamond ring, IMHO, would not be supporting violence in exactly the same way. And your girlfriend wouldn't be upset.
All that said, I can't tell if you mean what you say. If you know what your girlfriend would like, you're going to have to think of a way to make her at least that excited about something else before you take it away. She's going to get idiotic comments from her friends in any case if you can't afford some gaudy monstrosity. Figure it out so that she'll be blown away no matter what. If you're not sure, do more figuring. Ideally, she'll be blown away, and it will be affordable. But the affordable part should be the first to go
There is further limitation.
Your time machine would have to be able to travel back in time past the point of invention.
If you invented a time portal that would allow you to travel to other time portals, similarly created, at any time in the past or future, you would not be able to go back in time past the point of their invention.
Sure, perhaps everything would keep changing until all knowledge of time portals were destroyed, but that would have to occur some time *after* their invention.
However, if this discovery were possible a second time, then you could count on some other type of life form reinventing time/space travel at some point in the future. At which point everything keeps changing. I don't think it's quite as simple as the original poster suggested.
2+2=3.9
Right. That's the point. I'm not quoting myself. Sorry about my homepage.
Man, I hate it when trolls like you have a good point. Of course you're correct about morons talking about monopolies as free market perfection. But:
What, you're going to blame this fiasco on one age group being myopic? What generation have you picked as the culprit? I assume you don't mean your generation. How come the other more intelligent generations didn't have the foresight to not go along with the myopia and invest sanely? If they had done that, there's no way the myopia could have caused this turmoil.
You're going to have to lay the blame a little more evenly than that. There were/are a whole lot of shills in every age group. Jesus.
That's funny, I have the 600 mHz ibook and I say that all the time.
Your L2 cache may have saved you this time, but PC laptops have been Fast Enough for a year or two. Sure, *now* Apple's hardware is all fast enough, but it's not like that's been a continuing design decision.
All that Intel talk was just talk.
All this IBM talk is just talk too.
Nobody with insider information is talking right now. That means that nobody knows a damn thing. Everyone is simply surmising about what could possibly happen. And they could all be full of crap.
NOBODY HAS SAID THAT APPLE WILL USE THIS CHIP. Everybody *suspects* that they *might* use it. But everyone is blowing smoke and guessing until we actually hear news from inside Cupertino.
IBM will use this processor in their machines. We have no evidence whatsoever that this chip was designed to be compatible with Apple software. It might be.
Uh huh. 19th century wasn't much better. And the first half of the 20th century was messed up too. If we want to talk about the land of the free, we only really get to talk about the last 50 years or less.