The only mystery is why Adobe continues to support the Windows platform. They should counter attack, by making their products rock on alternative platforms like OS X and Linux, and be late and sucky on Windows.
Ooooh. Or they could just release a free binary for Linux. Future versions could be paid if it ever took off.
That would be kindof painful for Microsoft. You'd have the poor end of the graphics people switching to Linux like crazy...
Well, no, I'm sure that GW was never aware of this meeting, and I'm sure it was just someone in the State dept. that made this decision. Again, frequently diplomats and US Attorneys have to carry out the President's agenda, and make political choices according to his policy. Swapping them out makes more sense to me than barring some of these telecom engineers. This seems like the only benefit to the administration is to punish people who supported Kerry.
But whatever. My point wasn't that this was a big deal. My point was simply that this could be a handy way for you to self-diagnose whether your head was up your ass, because it was plainly wrong. If you disagree, you've reconsidered your position, and you would like to keep your head where it is, that's your business.
No one has claimed that these guys have done anything wrong aside from donate money to Kerry. If it turns out different, then I'll agree with you. According to the quote from the White House, all they did wrong was donate money to Kerry.
That's just an old asset. XP has a 32bit color plus alpha icon for the control panel. The only thing totally busted as far as I can tell is the icons for the individual "administrative tools", which are rather aged.
Also, the window dressing for XP was totally different in the beta. I imagine that they're doing the same here. You should be able to visually identify whether you are running the beta or the official relase.
So I think I'll just continue to support the idea that the President has broad powers to choose his own people for the Executive. Which does include meetings with other governments and their agencies....
Granted, he has those powers. He can choose the people that attend the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission on our behalf. His choice, this time, seems punitive and unrelated to the activities of the IATC. His choices were wrong. It's not that big a deal, but again, if you can't see that it's wrong, please consider my opinion that you are blinding yourself intentionally.
It is clear that in the past (this meeting is annually), they did include them. It seems clear from what the WH said is that these guys are not very friendly to what the Government wants to do and said so. The spin comes from others and somehow match Kerry, donations to this decision. This is too easy and tempting to do.
No, see, your logic is broken here. The only regard in which the White House claims "these guys are not very friendly to what the Government wants to do" is in that they paid money to Kerry's campaign. That's what they mean when they said "those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November".
No one has asserted that they've had "lot of chances to cooperate and they consistently blew it". If that were the case, I'd agree with you. As long as it isn't, this action is obviously wrong. If I haven't convinced you already, I'm not going to. I'm just trying to point out that you might want to remove your head from your ass and look around. I really thought that my original post was a helpful suggestion.
No, that is not your point. You were not saying the criterion may not be good, you were saying it is bad. And you didn't back up that point, you merely continue to reassert it.
Really, I swear that was my point when I said that your definition of "political appointment" was irrelevant. Even if it's a political appointment, that does not show that this was a good or bad criterion, thus whether it is a political appointment is irrelevant.
Elsewhere in our discussion, I feel that I did point out several times why I think $250 to the Dems is actually a poor criterion, but my explanation had nothing to do with your definition of a political appointment. Sometimes you have responded with nitpicks that I do not dispute, and sometimes you seem to have ignored my points altogether. Whatever.
the federal government should have no business dealing with such things in the first place.
Granted. If this used to be sorted by having all the telcos submit a list of their guys, why this isn't just dealt with by the telcos I have no idea.
We both have access to the same facts about the issue. I'll say again, that everything about this is to me, plainly wrong. All I ask is that if you don't see a problem, you should reconsider. If you've reconsidered, and read just a few of the arguments in this forum, and still don't see a problem with the administrations actions, I hardly think that my comments are going to correct your backwards ass. Like I said, I think this is obvious. I think you're an idiot just because you don't agree already. So we're not going to get anywhere.
You may not be spinning this. My only point is that if you don't see a problem with this activity, you're wrong and you should double check your judgment. Figure out why you are wrong this time.
It sounds like you do see something wrong here, as well as seeing something wrong with Clinton's behavior. My indictment really doesn't apply to you, then. That's why Hilary Clinton's health care plan is irrelevant.
Yes, these guys could all be the worst candidates for their positions, but I doubt that the State Department is aware of their qualifications aside from the fact that they donated money to the Democrats. This doubt is based primarily on the quote from Bush's spokesman, not a conspiracy theory.
positions controlled entirely by the president are not necessarily political.
Yes, they are, actually.
His janitorial staff, for example?
paying $250 to the Democratic party is not still not a good reason to prevent someone from participating in this commission
In your opinion, which has not been backed up by any actual facts. It's begging the question.
That is exactly my point. Just because it's a political appointment does not mean that $250 to the Dems is good criterion. It could be good criterion for some political appointments and bad for others. So your point about whether it's a political appointment is irrelevant, like I said.
I have taken it for granted that Verizon submitted a list of their best candidates, and that most of them were good.
No, you took it for granted that they would be some of the best people suited for the job, not merely that they would be good.
If I am hired as a manager, and half my programmers are Java programmers, but I need Perl programmers, I'll replace the Java programmers with Perl programmers. This is not a punishment.
And if you were hired as a manager, and half your Perl programmers were Democrats, but you were a Republican, and you replaced your Democrats with Republicans, that would be a fucking punishment.
You're saying, "Their job is to represent the Republicans". We're saying, "Looks like they're just Perl programmers participating in the government."
Further, the IATC delegation IS a political appointment, despite protestations to the contrary. What else can you call it? It's an unpaid public service controlled entirely by the President.
Your criterion for describing this as a political appointment are arbitrary and irrelevant.
They are neither. They are arbitrary because many political appointments are paid, and unpaid positions controlled entirely by the president are not necessarily political. You picked those criterion so they would fit this case.
They are irrelevant because even if you would like to call this a political appointment, paying $250 to the Democratic party is not still not a good reason to prevent someone from participating in this commission. Just like preventing your attendance at a multi-governmental commission on Perl interoperability based on your party membership would be wrong. (Sorry, that sentence sucked. I'm sure you understand my meaning.) I believe that would be punitive.
Again, some of the people best suited for the job will not attend this meeting
Like I said, you have not shown this.
You are right. I have taken it for granted that Verizon submitted a list of their best candidates, and that most of them were good. Do you feel it likely that support of the Democratic party coincided with the worst delegates for a commission on telecommunications interoperability?
But you obviously see something far more sinister than has ever happened in this country.
Yes, only in that it is further along these lines than we need to go. No, not more sinister in that this is not a big deal. Health care is an issue where your position will be related to your party politics. Telecom interoperability is not.
This is new and different in recent politics, and is reminiscent of political machines where a change of administration meant that every appointment and government job was redistributed along party lines. So yes, in that regard it is politics as usual... fifty years ago and more. As far as I understand, Clinton may have played party politics when it had something to do with policy. This is certainly different in that regard, although I don't know whether I can excuse Clinton's behavior either.
I wish I could refrain from nitpicking your posts.
I'm repeating myself, but I realize there are large differences between the military and this commission.
The members of the commission were attending because their employers directed them to do so. This is a selfish reason, and still a good one that serves our nation and our government well.
Your criterion for describing this as a political appointment are arbitrary and irrelevant.
I will grant you that many of Clinton's actions, including the one you describe, were worse than this action by the Bush administration. What does that prove? By bringing this up, you increase my suspicion that your support here is purely partisan.
Too bad you haven't actually shown there is anything wrong with what happened.
Again, some of the people best suited for the job will not attend this meeting. That effects Americans a little, and those specific people somewhat more. Obviously this is not the end of the world for anyone, but that is the harm that was done. The bulk of the harm was done to people who donated money to the president's opposition, and there is no apparent good to come of it. Thus, punitive.
And in YOUR SPECIFIC CASE, your software needs may be accomodated by other consortiums that put together GPL software for their own needs. Film studios may do some GIMP development. Hardware makers may do some operating systems development. Large software developers may pour some work into development environments. They'll do it under the GPL because they don't want to bear the entire development costs themselves.
Dunno what your point is. My original post was simply pointing out that the GPL is not pro- or anti-capitalism. It is used widely in entirely for-profit development. Original poster was wondering aloud whether Stallman would hate him because he's some kind of randroid, when obviously Stallman couldn't care less.
When I said it had very little negative impact, I meant that it will have very little negative impact on most Americans. I tried to point out that it could have significantly more negative impact for those individuals actually kicked out of the meeting.
You are correct, if these people would be less able to do their job due to their political beliefs, then it would not be punitive to bar them. That is plainly not the case. This is obviously a punishment. How severe a punishment is debatable, but not whether it is so.
I wasn't talking about their "duty." I was talking about what they actually do: they are de facto representatives of the executive branch, being appointed by the executive branch.
Good point. Maybe when we Democrats gain control again, we should fire everyone in the military that donated money to conservative causes, since they are de facto representatives of the executive branch, being commanded by the executive branch. That'd be a great idea. (And yes, illegal for other reasons. But wrong for the same ones.)
The only reason that this is ok with you is because it's your guys that made the fuckup.
No, this is exactly the kind of explanation that I saw when I browsed at -1, and I include it when I say that there were no insightful, valid viewpoints.
All the things you say can be true, and this is still fucked. Your point does not speak to the issue. Yes, other people have been fired due to politics when perhaps they should not, and yes, other people have been kept on despite politics. Hilary Clinton's health care fiasco is completely irrelevant.
This is new and different. Still not a big deal, but different, and obviously wrong. If you're interested in spinning it any other way, you're off the path and into the woods already.
Anyway, there are a lot more uninsightful attackers getting modded up than uninsightful apologists getting modded down.
Granted. Whatever. Still don't see any insightful apologists, up or down.
All of these complete morons saying this is illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, persecuting people, and all of this other nonsense.
I doubt that it's illegal or unconstitutional. It is, however, persecution. If we there were an international committee on Mac OS and Perl interoperability organized by various governments, but the Democrat-run state department wouldn't let you attend due to your affiliation with the Republican party, that would be... persecution. I don't know how you can see it any other way. I have a hard time calling it immoral because I'm not sure what that would mean here. It's obviously wrong.
This is really a nonstory, at best.
I've heard you say that before when your guys made the fuckup.
Oh my, they want people who like them to represent them.
But that isn't the job of the committee members. Their duty is not to represent the administration. Their duty is to represent their companies and their nation. I don't see how fealty can be properly applied to this. I don't even see how it helps the administration, except to punish anyone who opposed them.
What negative impact does this have, on anyone?
Very little. Maybe more impact on that poor guy who gave $250 to the Democrats. Some of the people most suited to hashing out various telecom technical issues will not be able to do so. But why aren't you asking: what positive impact does this have on anyone?
Ok, we can talk about that too, but how you think the business model could work is unrelated to whether GNU types are anti-capitalist. Which was my point.
If you're curious about how the GPL can and should work for capitalist endeavors, take a look at the way it is being used by business, and maybe you'll grow a clue. IBM, HP, CA, Intel, and NEC all realized that Linux was important to their business. They chipped in a bunch of cash to form the OSDL. OSDL pays programmers to work on Linux. IBM, HP, CA, Intel, and NEC also hire programmers to work on Linux and focus on the issues their customers are interested in.
Then IBM, HP, CA, Intel, and NEC sell shit that uses Linux.
Ok, where did anybody do anything anti-capitalist? Where did it not work in the real world?
Do people buy Red Hat Linux for giggles? Practically speaking, you're wrong. And who says the dominant model for software is pay-per-copy? Shareware authors and Adobe, maybe.
Great grandparent had a question about the GPL that has been asked and answered approximately 10 billion times per mention of the GPL in a story. He thinks the GPL is anti-capitalist, which is irredeemably bone stupid. The GPL is absolutely neither capitalist nor anti-capitalist. It's just a damn agreement.
You're right, I didn't describe why the action was wrong. Many other comments on this story have done that perfectly well. Go point me to some effective refutations and I'll shut the hell up. I went looking and didn't find any.
I'm really just trying to call your attention to the possibility that your thinking may be completely wrong on this issue. If you can figure out why, then it may help you correct your thinking in other venues as well.
This issue is a convenient litmus test: If you don't see the problem with the administration's actions here, there is a problem with your eyes. No, that doesn't mean you're wrong about everything, and no, honestly, it doesn't mean you'd drink cyanide coolaid. That was hyperbole.
I just started browsing through this discussion at -1, to see if insightful conservatives with valid viewpoints were being squashed by slashdot groupthink.
They aren't.
If you can honestly defend this action, you have less critical thinking skills than a Jonestown suicide victim. It's not that big a deal, as I don't think it's going to kill too many people just because a few engineers couldn't make it to the meeting, but it is plainly and completely wrong.
If you can bring yourself to think that it is right, then you must correct your thinking. I am sure that I have similar backwards notions in other areas, and I would welcome such corrections from the right source. Some guy on slashdot is clearly not that source, so I'm not asking you to give me the benefit of the doubt. But please, consider that you might be wrong. Double check, just this once.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be kindof painful for Microsoft. You'd have the poor end of the graphics people switching to Linux like crazy...
Well, no, I'm sure that GW was never aware of this meeting, and I'm sure it was just someone in the State dept. that made this decision. Again, frequently diplomats and US Attorneys have to carry out the President's agenda, and make political choices according to his policy. Swapping them out makes more sense to me than barring some of these telecom engineers. This seems like the only benefit to the administration is to punish people who supported Kerry.
But whatever. My point wasn't that this was a big deal. My point was simply that this could be a handy way for you to self-diagnose whether your head was up your ass, because it was plainly wrong. If you disagree, you've reconsidered your position, and you would like to keep your head where it is, that's your business.
Yeah, I was bailing anyway.
No one has claimed that these guys have done anything wrong aside from donate money to Kerry. If it turns out different, then I'll agree with you. According to the quote from the White House, all they did wrong was donate money to Kerry.
Whatever.
That's just an old asset. XP has a 32bit color plus alpha icon for the control panel. The only thing totally busted as far as I can tell is the icons for the individual "administrative tools", which are rather aged.
Also, the window dressing for XP was totally different in the beta. I imagine that they're doing the same here. You should be able to visually identify whether you are running the beta or the official relase.
Agreed.
No one has asserted that they've had "lot of chances to cooperate and they consistently blew it". If that were the case, I'd agree with you. As long as it isn't, this action is obviously wrong. If I haven't convinced you already, I'm not going to. I'm just trying to point out that you might want to remove your head from your ass and look around. I really thought that my original post was a helpful suggestion.
Elsewhere in our discussion, I feel that I did point out several times why I think $250 to the Dems is actually a poor criterion, but my explanation had nothing to do with your definition of a political appointment. Sometimes you have responded with nitpicks that I do not dispute, and sometimes you seem to have ignored my points altogether. Whatever.Granted. If this used to be sorted by having all the telcos submit a list of their guys, why this isn't just dealt with by the telcos I have no idea.
We both have access to the same facts about the issue. I'll say again, that everything about this is to me, plainly wrong. All I ask is that if you don't see a problem, you should reconsider. If you've reconsidered, and read just a few of the arguments in this forum, and still don't see a problem with the administrations actions, I hardly think that my comments are going to correct your backwards ass. Like I said, I think this is obvious. I think you're an idiot just because you don't agree already. So we're not going to get anywhere.
You may not be spinning this. My only point is that if you don't see a problem with this activity, you're wrong and you should double check your judgment. Figure out why you are wrong this time.
It sounds like you do see something wrong here, as well as seeing something wrong with Clinton's behavior. My indictment really doesn't apply to you, then. That's why Hilary Clinton's health care plan is irrelevant.
Yes, these guys could all be the worst candidates for their positions, but I doubt that the State Department is aware of their qualifications aside from the fact that they donated money to the Democrats. This doubt is based primarily on the quote from Bush's spokesman, not a conspiracy theory.
You're saying, "Their job is to represent the Republicans". We're saying, "Looks like they're just Perl programmers participating in the government."
Have I correctly boiled down the debate?
They are irrelevant because even if you would like to call this a political appointment, paying $250 to the Democratic party is not still not a good reason to prevent someone from participating in this commission. Just like preventing your attendance at a multi-governmental commission on Perl interoperability based on your party membership would be wrong. (Sorry, that sentence sucked. I'm sure you understand my meaning.) I believe that would be punitive. You are right. I have taken it for granted that Verizon submitted a list of their best candidates, and that most of them were good. Do you feel it likely that support of the Democratic party coincided with the worst delegates for a commission on telecommunications interoperability?
This is new and different in recent politics, and is reminiscent of political machines where a change of administration meant that every appointment and government job was redistributed along party lines. So yes, in that regard it is politics as usual... fifty years ago and more. As far as I understand, Clinton may have played party politics when it had something to do with policy. This is certainly different in that regard, although I don't know whether I can excuse Clinton's behavior either.
I'm repeating myself, but I realize there are large differences between the military and this commission.
The members of the commission were attending because their employers directed them to do so. This is a selfish reason, and still a good one that serves our nation and our government well.
Your criterion for describing this as a political appointment are arbitrary and irrelevant.
I will grant you that many of Clinton's actions, including the one you describe, were worse than this action by the Bush administration. What does that prove? By bringing this up, you increase my suspicion that your support here is purely partisan.Again, some of the people best suited for the job will not attend this meeting. That effects Americans a little, and those specific people somewhat more. Obviously this is not the end of the world for anyone, but that is the harm that was done. The bulk of the harm was done to people who donated money to the president's opposition, and there is no apparent good to come of it. Thus, punitive.
And in YOUR SPECIFIC CASE, your software needs may be accomodated by other consortiums that put together GPL software for their own needs. Film studios may do some GIMP development. Hardware makers may do some operating systems development. Large software developers may pour some work into development environments. They'll do it under the GPL because they don't want to bear the entire development costs themselves.
Dunno what your point is. My original post was simply pointing out that the GPL is not pro- or anti-capitalism. It is used widely in entirely for-profit development. Original poster was wondering aloud whether Stallman would hate him because he's some kind of randroid, when obviously Stallman couldn't care less.
It's pretty clear that he's saying he's a pagan and he thinks the Christian god is a pansy. Thor's hammer isn't exactly an obscure reference.
Whether or not he actually believes it or just thinks it's funny is hard to say.
You are correct, if these people would be less able to do their job due to their political beliefs, then it would not be punitive to bar them. That is plainly not the case. This is obviously a punishment. How severe a punishment is debatable, but not whether it is so.Good point. Maybe when we Democrats gain control again, we should fire everyone in the military that donated money to conservative causes, since they are de facto representatives of the executive branch, being commanded by the executive branch. That'd be a great idea. (And yes, illegal for other reasons. But wrong for the same ones.)
The only reason that this is ok with you is because it's your guys that made the fuckup.
No, this is exactly the kind of explanation that I saw when I browsed at -1, and I include it when I say that there were no insightful, valid viewpoints.
All the things you say can be true, and this is still fucked. Your point does not speak to the issue. Yes, other people have been fired due to politics when perhaps they should not, and yes, other people have been kept on despite politics. Hilary Clinton's health care fiasco is completely irrelevant.
This is new and different. Still not a big deal, but different, and obviously wrong. If you're interested in spinning it any other way, you're off the path and into the woods already.
Ok, we can talk about that too, but how you think the business model could work is unrelated to whether GNU types are anti-capitalist. Which was my point.
If you're curious about how the GPL can and should work for capitalist endeavors, take a look at the way it is being used by business , and maybe you'll grow a clue. IBM, HP, CA, Intel, and NEC all realized that Linux was important to their business. They chipped in a bunch of cash to form the OSDL. OSDL pays programmers to work on Linux. IBM, HP, CA, Intel, and NEC also hire programmers to work on Linux and focus on the issues their customers are interested in.
Then IBM, HP, CA, Intel, and NEC sell shit that uses Linux.
Ok, where did anybody do anything anti-capitalist? Where did it not work in the real world?
Do people buy Red Hat Linux for giggles? Practically speaking, you're wrong. And who says the dominant model for software is pay-per-copy? Shareware authors and Adobe, maybe.
Great grandparent had a question about the GPL that has been asked and answered approximately 10 billion times per mention of the GPL in a story. He thinks the GPL is anti-capitalist, which is irredeemably bone stupid. The GPL is absolutely neither capitalist nor anti-capitalist. It's just a damn agreement.
Your post is off topic.
No, not a troll.
You're right, I didn't describe why the action was wrong. Many other comments on this story have done that perfectly well. Go point me to some effective refutations and I'll shut the hell up. I went looking and didn't find any.
I'm really just trying to call your attention to the possibility that your thinking may be completely wrong on this issue. If you can figure out why, then it may help you correct your thinking in other venues as well.
This issue is a convenient litmus test: If you don't see the problem with the administration's actions here, there is a problem with your eyes. No, that doesn't mean you're wrong about everything, and no, honestly, it doesn't mean you'd drink cyanide coolaid. That was hyperbole.
But it does mean that you're wrong right now.
I just started browsing through this discussion at -1, to see if insightful conservatives with valid viewpoints were being squashed by slashdot groupthink.
They aren't.
If you can honestly defend this action, you have less critical thinking skills than a Jonestown suicide victim. It's not that big a deal, as I don't think it's going to kill too many people just because a few engineers couldn't make it to the meeting, but it is plainly and completely wrong.
If you can bring yourself to think that it is right, then you must correct your thinking. I am sure that I have similar backwards notions in other areas, and I would welcome such corrections from the right source. Some guy on slashdot is clearly not that source, so I'm not asking you to give me the benefit of the doubt. But please, consider that you might be wrong. Double check, just this once.
Given that offtopic comments are often moderated harshly, it's hard to consider his actions to be that of a karma whore.
You can call him paranoid or offtopic, but he'd probably agree. And great-grandparent was offtopic too.