Even if the current system works well doesn't mean it can't be made to work better. The only reason the system is better than it used to be is because some people strive for something more than being content with "good enough". I see no reason for this trend not to continue.
You do not know this, and you have absolutely no data to back this up. It is not possible for that blanket statement to be true. There is no one solution that works for everyone. Many kids excel in public school, and many kids struggle with it. Many kids are much better off avoiding the public school system. I know I struggled with it quite a bit and spent more time avoiding people who were trying to beat me up because I was different (didn't listen to Poison and Ratt and didn't spell psyche "S-I-K-E") than I did learning anything. However, I know many intelligent people in my class who did well in public school. Although I feel I would have been better off without it, there is no way for me to know for sure.
My wife and I choose to home school my son because we found that by the time he was going to be attending first grade, he was already way ahead of where most of the other children were going to be in his class. He is currently 9 years old, and we get evaluated every year by a qualified, certified teacher. If we get to the point where he is falling behind other kids his age, we will reevaluate our plan. In the mean time, we have joined a local homeschooling group, and unlike in a public school, he gets to hang out with some kids his age, some kids older, and some kids younger (more like real life in the adult world), and learn to get along with people without the pressure of having to be ashamed if his own tastes may be different from the tastes of others. He gets plenty of socialization, and gets to hang around older kids who are great role models of how to be in charge of your own learning. I know 2 kids, one 15 years old and one 16 years old, who are homeschooled but are taking college classes to supplement where they have exceeded their parents' ability to teach more complex subjects. Neither is having culture shock due to lack of social skills. Neither is floundering because they can't acclimate to a classroom environment. They excel, and I believe that it is because they are bright kids and they feel that they are in charge of their own destiny. They do not sit around waiting for someone to teach them.
Just because you can imagine how something could fail doesn't mean it always or even often will. Just because you had a particular experience and turned out okay doesn't mean that everyone else should have that experience, too. There are plenty of parents who use the guise of unschooling as an excuse to not discipline their children. There are also just as many parents who use the public school system as a free baby-sitter so they can disengage from being active in their child's life. To dismiss a form of education because it can be abused is short-sighted at best.
... I could not know all that I do today without those mind-numbingly painful drills and lessons and test and reviews.
You don't know this, either. It may make you feel better to believe it, and that's fine for you, but all you've convinced me of is that you don't like to distinguish between fact and opinion.
I'm a little confused. Why is it that "entertainment" and "exploring the human condition" are considered mutually exclusive? There seems to be a tendency to put more cerebral entertainment in a class that is somehow elevated and not "common" entertainment. I believe I read books (fiction and non-fiction), listen to music, watch movies, play video games, and play musical instruments for entertainment value. Those activities also contain differing levels of learning and exploration of the human condition. The idea that entertainment cannot also teach or that intellectual exploration cannot also be entertaining seems a bit short-sighted.
...meaning that artists and their managers need to make more money from concerts and feel less constrained in setting ticket prices.
I don't think their definition of need matches mine. Does the artist 'need' to put food on the table, or does the artist 'need' to take a year off in Italy with a 15 person entourage?
I've always liked Mike Watt's (http://www.hootpage.com/) philosophy that, as a musician, he could devide his work life into two activities: flyers and shows. Any activity that was not playing live was an advertisement to get people to come see him play. CDs are just another way of advertising your show. Granted, they have numerous other benefits, but that is the main purpose.
It is my opinion that if you can't make a living from playing live, then maybe you aren't that good a musician, and you should think about a different career. As with any other job, you either learn to live on what you make, or you get another job. Not by any means is that to say you shouldn't keep playing as a hobby, but saying you can't make a living because people are 'stealing' your recorded music is a cop out. But hey, if people will pay $250 to see you play live, more power to you. However, I know I will most likely not be in the audience at that price.
Let me clue you in on a secret, smarty-pants. People don't like being told they are simpletons and tools.
People don't like to be told a lot of things. That doesn't make those things not true.
but ssshhhhhhh...
It's a secret, too. Don't tell anyone or my group of pants-wearing smarties is bound to lose all future elections! Then what would we do with our cosmic enlightenment? We'd probably just sit around in our corduroy jackets with leather patched elbows and argue philosophy, poking at the air with the long stems of our pipes!
And you have found part of the problem with the liberal in me:-).
I despise the fact that we have a representative form of government that fails time and time again because people refuse to act in their own best interest. Advertising has become far more effective than the framers of the Constitution ever predicted, and people vote for the candidate with name brand shoes rather than a candidate with a track record of acting to benefit society. Rather than admit this form of government no longer works (no, I don't have any better ideas), my knee jerk reaction is to enact laws to protect those who are too simple to act in their own self interest, otherwise they just become a tool for whichever group can instill the most fear in them. I'm not totally convinced it's not what needs to be done. I'm also not sure it would do anyone any good.
You raise some good points. I still don't think I completely agree with you, but that doesn't mean I'm right.
Your first paragraph is full of passionate statements. Fortunately, acting mad doesn't make you necessarily correct. The parent post makes good points. Your post is not much more than a series of inflammatory and unsubstantiated statements.
However, I'm not much interested in left vs. right debate, but I do want to address your last sentence.
There is no difference between a blogger and some dude in a bar rattling on about politics.
As I see it, the big difference between a blogger and some dude in a bar rattling on about politics is that the blogger has a potential audience of millions, while the dude in the bar is lucky if his audience is more than 5. Because of this, there is a possibility that the blogger is getting paid a couple hundred thousand dollars to state his "opinion" on his site. Also, there is not much of a chance that your dude in the bar is really a major political candidate in disguise, whereas the blogger could vary well be any number of people on a candidate's staff posing as someone else.
We have Darth Tyrenus, Darth Sidious, Darth Maul, General Grievous... what's next, Darth Meanie? Darth Badguy? I'm still convinced that Count Dooku is named as such just because it was as close to 'Count Poopie' that Lucas could get without being TOO obvious.
Production budget for My Big Fat Greek Wedding: $5,000,000 Production budget for Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers: $94,000,000
I bet tickets were the same price to see each one in a first run theater. The cost of entertainment (well, anything really, but especially entertainment) is based on perceived value. The cost is however much people are willing to pay for it. The only way I see this bringing down the cost of CDs is that it is so much easier for an individual to set up a recording studio of their own and put out high quality (not quite professional quality, but much closer than a 4-track cassette recorder) music for a price that drastically undercuts the RIAA based music.
With today's software and fast computers, it's amazing the quality of stuff that can be put out with just a couple good mics, some time, and a good/creative ear.
Buy Windows? I'm not talking about businesses here. I'm talking about for personal use: Does anyone actually pay money for Windows anymore? (Unless, of course, it came bundled with the computer you bought.) I can't think of anyone I know who has walked into a store and plunked down money for a retail Microsoft OS.
You, my friend, sound like a troll of the most obnoxious kind; slightly intelligent. Why do I call you a troll? Because your arguments boil down to this: "I don't like the way they do things. Since I don't like the way they do things, most people (at least the ones who matter) don't like they way they do things. All of the people who like the way they do things are in the minority and therefore stupid and insignificant. The browser should only do the things that I think it should do, and it should do all of those things by default. Anyone who wants something different is an alien and shouldn't be allowed to use a browser anyway." Do you work in marketing? Maybe for a big record label?
Yeah, I can't really watch the coverage either. I didn't know anyone in the two towers personally. I had been to New York a few times and had seen the towers (never went in, though). I have a cousin who used to live in New York, and one of her friends was within a few blocks when it happened. That's probably my closest personal connection to the tragedy, but there is something about the whole thing that is so sad and pointless that I can't help but feel that same queasyness in the pit of my stomach. It's the little things that seem to be the hardest to deal with, though: I can generally avoid most of the coverage, but I will never be able to look at a skyscaper without being able to clearly picture an airplane flying into it, and I will never see an airplane flying overhead and not fear for who might be flying it and what their intentions may be.
For better or worse, I lost my innocence on September 11, 2001.
The big difference that I see is that (mostly) only coal miners get killed mining for coal.
They know what they signed up for when they took the job. (I can't speak to the idea of family hardship and whether or not they have a real choice.) This is not to say we shouldn't do everything we can to make it as safe as possible to mine coal, but I can safely assume that if I'm not a coal miner, I'm not in any immediate danger. On the other hand, if I live near a nuclear plant, I don't have the luxury of making that assumption. I'm not going to debate on the chances of anything happening or what the percentages are of how safe the plants are, I'm just saying that IF something goes wrong harnessing nuclear power, the ramifications of mass destruction (and severe impact to the environment and people for several generations) are much greater than from a coal mine. Not that I'm against nuclear power, but this is the kind of thing that scares people.
By the way, figuring out what to do with the waste is a BIG issue.
Read a book, listen to classical music, go to an art museum go to a history museum, go to a play, go to a live orchestra preformance, do the things that make us human.....the entertainmnet industry certainly does not.
Since when was buying tickets to the theater, buying music, or buying a book not contributing to the entertainment industry? Just because a given form of entertainment is considered more cultured doesn't mean it doesn't feed into the same business. I can't stand the pompous idea that some people have about what is worthy entertainment. You are listening to Chopin on an audiophile quality cd player and reciever; I'm watching Rambo: First Blood on my HDTV and DVD player. We're both just sitting on our asses paying a ridiculous amount of money to be entertained. Entertainment is entertainment, even entertainment that was created this year (rather than 400 years ago) with corporate backing, whether you consider it worthy or not.
I'm a big fan of wide screen, which is why I was so disappointed with the DVD for Shawshank Redemption (one of my favorite movies), which was advertised as wide screen. When I did a side by side comparison with it and my full frame version on VHS, I found that the "widescreen" version was just the full frame version with top and bottom cropped. Very disappointing.
I'm a little confused about some of the posts that say I should "shift-rightclick" on an application to change it's association. I use WinNT 4.0 at work, and I ran into quite a bit of trouble with file extensions that were not simple to fix. I'm a rather experienced windows user, and the procedure was neither simple nor intuitive like many posters seem to want to imply.
First of all, I don't know what the deal is with "shift-right click". Maybe I'm missing something simple here, but all I need to do is right click. If I shift-right click, I get the wrong menu (I get a menu that refers to the space around the file (desktop, file manager view, etc.), not the file itself). If I right click, I only get the "Open With..." option if the file extension doesn't already have an association. Once the file has an association, the "Open With..." option is replaced with an "Open" option, thus removing your ability to change the association via this menu.
Also, under the File Associations tab under windows explorer, not ALL file extensions are represented. Example:
Someone asks me to look at a script created by program FooScripter. The the file he sends me is called script.t (notice the ".t" extension). I do not have FooScripter installed on my machine, so I right-click on the file and choose "Open With...". I choose notepad, but I forget to uncheck the "Always use this program" box (which I think should be unchecked by default, but maybe that's just me). So now I have this file association that I didn't mean to make. According to windows, it is now a "T_file". It is, however, for a reason I can't figure out, not an association that has representation in the "File Associations" tab in windows explorer. This is the first place I looked to get rid of it. To make a long story less long, the only way to fix this was to change it by hand in the registry. (Lesson in mind numbing tediousness, try searching your registry for the correct instances of "t".)
Anyway, based on this experience, I think the Salon article makes a good point. Changing file extensions is not always as easy as some of you are trying to imply.
I love the Minutemen, and I grew up listening to the Dead Kennedy's; I know exactly what you're talking about (they haven't banned NoMeansNo, either). You have to realize who made this list, though. You can't ban something if you don't know of its existance. I doubt if these groups are on their playlists anyway, so there is no need to ban them.
I'm a little confused by this. I don't know what the issue is here, but I do know that there are companies that sell dual boot systems. GamePC is one of them. I can get a system that boots Red Hat 7.1 and/or one of the current Windows flavors (ME, 98SE, or 2000).
I don't think you're getting the point of the statement. Mine is not an argument of which license is better, it is just a statement that I think the BSD license is more flexible (i.e. more free) than the GPL. The argument that I have the "freedom" to not use GPL'd code is irrelevant. I'll try to more directly describe what I'm saying:
Given a snippet a code (we'll call it foo.c), assume for the point of this example that it does what I need it to do, and I can't figure out any other way to do it. If foo.c is under the GPL, and if I want my program to work, I am legally obligated to make the rest of my program open source. If I work for a company that will not open source its work, then I lose. Too bad. If foo.c is under the BSD license, I can use it as long as I give credit where credit is due. Given this example, and withholding any value judgments ("The GPL is free because you are free to not work for that company"), it is quite clear that the GPL is more restrictive than the BSD license. Some people have a problem with that. Some people don't. Some people applaud the restriction. It doesn't change the fact that the GPL is not as free (as in freedom to do with it whatever you wish) as the BSD license, which was the original poster's point.
Someone made the analogy of (paraphrased) "Your freedom to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose." Well, the question applies here, too. Am I more free if you are not allowed to hit me, or am I more free if I'm allowed to hit you back? Personally, being physically non-violent, I prefer the former. That doesn't necessarily make it more free.
How can a license "try" to "infect" things? Does it have a mind of its own?
Personification. Just like information (or software) "wants" to be free. Don't be such a ninny. Argue the point. I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying that technically the BSD license seems freer (in a dictionary sense) than the GPL only because it allows you to do whatever you want. The GPL, IIRC (I'm not a license guru), mandates that if you use GPL code in your code you must GPL the entire thing (if this is not what the GPL says, then I am sorry for making the incorrect assumption). This is forced freedom. Which is better is all a matter of personal preference, but it appears to me that his point is valid in that the GPL places more demands on those who wish to use GPL code than the BSD license puts on those who wish to use BSD code.
It looks like you're right; I just went to the OpenBSD page, and it looks as if the announcement of the June 1 release date has been pulled. This particularly sucks because I just pre-ordered last night.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary, if the comparison was referencing differences between the iPhone4 and the iPhone5, then we are indeed comparing Apples to Apples.
ps. Sadly, I have been waiting about 25 years to use that joke.
Even if the current system works well doesn't mean it can't be made to work better.
The only reason the system is better than it used to be is because some people strive for something more than being content with "good enough". I see no reason for this trend not to continue.
Child B. Child B without a shadow of a doubt.
You do not know this, and you have absolutely no data to back this up. It is not possible for that blanket statement to be true.
There is no one solution that works for everyone. Many kids excel in public school, and many kids struggle with it. Many kids are much better off avoiding the public school system. I know I struggled with it quite a bit and spent more time avoiding people who were trying to beat me up because I was different (didn't listen to Poison and Ratt and didn't spell psyche "S-I-K-E") than I did learning anything. However, I know many intelligent people in my class who did well in public school. Although I feel I would have been better off without it, there is no way for me to know for sure.
My wife and I choose to home school my son because we found that by the time he was going to be attending first grade, he was already way ahead of where most of the other children were going to be in his class. He is currently 9 years old, and we get evaluated every year by a qualified, certified teacher. If we get to the point where he is falling behind other kids his age, we will reevaluate our plan. In the mean time, we have joined a local homeschooling group, and unlike in a public school, he gets to hang out with some kids his age, some kids older, and some kids younger (more like real life in the adult world), and learn to get along with people without the pressure of having to be ashamed if his own tastes may be different from the tastes of others. He gets plenty of socialization, and gets to hang around older kids who are great role models of how to be in charge of your own learning. I know 2 kids, one 15 years old and one 16 years old, who are homeschooled but are taking college classes to supplement where they have exceeded their parents' ability to teach more complex subjects. Neither is having culture shock due to lack of social skills. Neither is floundering because they can't acclimate to a classroom environment. They excel, and I believe that it is because they are bright kids and they feel that they are in charge of their own destiny. They do not sit around waiting for someone to teach them.
Just because you can imagine how something could fail doesn't mean it always or even often will. Just because you had a particular experience and turned out okay doesn't mean that everyone else should have that experience, too. There are plenty of parents who use the guise of unschooling as an excuse to not discipline their children. There are also just as many parents who use the public school system as a free baby-sitter so they can disengage from being active in their child's life. To dismiss a form of education because it can be abused is short-sighted at best.
... I could not know all that I do today without those mind-numbingly painful drills and lessons and test and reviews.
You don't know this, either. It may make you feel better to believe it, and that's fine for you, but all you've convinced me of is that you don't like to distinguish between fact and opinion.
I'm a little confused.
Why is it that "entertainment" and "exploring the human condition" are considered mutually exclusive? There seems to be a tendency to put more cerebral entertainment in a class that is somehow elevated and not "common" entertainment. I believe I read books (fiction and non-fiction), listen to music, watch movies, play video games, and play musical instruments for entertainment value. Those activities also contain differing levels of learning and exploration of the human condition. The idea that entertainment cannot also teach or that intellectual exploration cannot also be entertaining seems a bit short-sighted.
I don't think their definition of need matches mine. Does the artist 'need' to put food on the table, or does the artist 'need' to take a year off in Italy with a 15 person entourage?
I've always liked Mike Watt's (http://www.hootpage.com/) philosophy that, as a musician, he could devide his work life into two activities: flyers and shows. Any activity that was not playing live was an advertisement to get people to come see him play. CDs are just another way of advertising your show. Granted, they have numerous other benefits, but that is the main purpose.
It is my opinion that if you can't make a living from playing live, then maybe you aren't that good a musician, and you should think about a different career. As with any other job, you either learn to live on what you make, or you get another job. Not by any means is that to say you shouldn't keep playing as a hobby, but saying you can't make a living because people are 'stealing' your recorded music is a cop out. But hey, if people will pay $250 to see you play live, more power to you. However, I know I will most likely not be in the audience at that price.
Let me clue you in on a secret, smarty-pants. People don't like being told they are simpletons and tools.
People don't like to be told a lot of things. That doesn't make those things not true.
but ssshhhhhhh...
It's a secret, too. Don't tell anyone or my group of pants-wearing smarties is bound to lose all future elections! Then what would we do with our cosmic enlightenment? We'd probably just sit around in our corduroy jackets with leather patched elbows and argue philosophy, poking at the air with the long stems of our pipes!
And you have found part of the problem with the liberal in me :-).
I despise the fact that we have a representative form of government that fails time and time again because people refuse to act in their own best interest. Advertising has become far more effective than the framers of the Constitution ever predicted, and people vote for the candidate with name brand shoes rather than a candidate with a track record of acting to benefit society. Rather than admit this form of government no longer works (no, I don't have any better ideas), my knee jerk reaction is to enact laws to protect those who are too simple to act in their own self interest, otherwise they just become a tool for whichever group can instill the most fear in them. I'm not totally convinced it's not what needs to be done. I'm also not sure it would do anyone any good.
You raise some good points. I still don't think I completely agree with you, but that doesn't mean I'm right.
Your first paragraph is full of passionate statements. Fortunately, acting mad doesn't make you necessarily correct. The parent post makes good points. Your post is not much more than a series of inflammatory and unsubstantiated statements. However, I'm not much interested in left vs. right debate, but I do want to address your last sentence.
There is no difference between a blogger and some dude in a bar rattling on about politics.
As I see it, the big difference between a blogger and some dude in a bar rattling on about politics is that the blogger has a potential audience of millions, while the dude in the bar is lucky if his audience is more than 5. Because of this, there is a possibility that the blogger is getting paid a couple hundred thousand dollars to state his "opinion" on his site. Also, there is not much of a chance that your dude in the bar is really a major political candidate in disguise, whereas the blogger could vary well be any number of people on a candidate's staff posing as someone else.
We have Darth Tyrenus, Darth Sidious, Darth Maul, General Grievous... what's next, Darth Meanie? Darth Badguy?
I'm still convinced that Count Dooku is named as such just because it was as close to 'Count Poopie' that Lucas could get without being TOO obvious.
There is not much of one.
...and stop calling me Shirly.
Production budget for My Big Fat Greek Wedding: $5,000,000
Production budget for Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers: $94,000,000
I bet tickets were the same price to see each one in a first run theater. The cost of entertainment (well, anything really, but especially entertainment) is based on perceived value. The cost is however much people are willing to pay for it. The only way I see this bringing down the cost of CDs is that it is so much easier for an individual to set up a recording studio of their own and put out high quality (not quite professional quality, but much closer than a 4-track cassette recorder) music for a price that drastically undercuts the RIAA based music.
With today's software and fast computers, it's amazing the quality of stuff that can be put out with just a couple good mics, some time, and a good/creative ear.
Buy Windows?
I'm not talking about businesses here. I'm talking about for personal use: Does anyone actually pay money for Windows anymore? (Unless, of course, it came bundled with the computer you bought.) I can't think of anyone I know who has walked into a store and plunked down money for a retail Microsoft OS.
How do you know where these sites are from?
I didn't see that information in the article.
You, my friend, sound like a troll of the most obnoxious kind; slightly intelligent. Why do I call you a troll? Because your arguments boil down to this:
"I don't like the way they do things. Since I don't like the way they do things, most people (at least the ones who matter) don't like they way they do things. All of the people who like the way they do things are in the minority and therefore stupid and insignificant. The browser should only do the things that I think it should do, and it should do all of those things by default. Anyone who wants something different is an alien and shouldn't be allowed to use a browser anyway."
Do you work in marketing? Maybe for a big record label?
Yeah, I can't really watch the coverage either.
I didn't know anyone in the two towers personally. I had been to New York a few times and had seen the towers (never went in, though). I have a cousin who used to live in New York, and one of her friends was within a few blocks when it happened. That's probably my closest personal connection to the tragedy, but there is something about the whole thing that is so sad and pointless that I can't help but feel that same queasyness in the pit of my stomach.
It's the little things that seem to be the hardest to deal with, though: I can generally avoid most of the coverage, but I will never be able to look at a skyscaper without being able to clearly picture an airplane flying into it, and I will never see an airplane flying overhead and not fear for who might be flying it and what their intentions may be.
For better or worse, I lost my innocence on September 11, 2001.
They know what they signed up for when they took the job. (I can't speak to the idea of family hardship and whether or not they have a real choice.) This is not to say we shouldn't do everything we can to make it as safe as possible to mine coal, but I can safely assume that if I'm not a coal miner, I'm not in any immediate danger. On the other hand, if I live near a nuclear plant, I don't have the luxury of making that assumption. I'm not going to debate on the chances of anything happening or what the percentages are of how safe the plants are, I'm just saying that IF something goes wrong harnessing nuclear power, the ramifications of mass destruction (and severe impact to the environment and people for several generations) are much greater than from a coal mine. Not that I'm against nuclear power, but this is the kind of thing that scares people.
By the way, figuring out what to do with the waste is a BIG issue.
Since when was buying tickets to the theater, buying music, or buying a book not contributing to the entertainment industry? Just because a given form of entertainment is considered more cultured doesn't mean it doesn't feed into the same business. I can't stand the pompous idea that some people have about what is worthy entertainment. You are listening to Chopin on an audiophile quality cd player and reciever; I'm watching Rambo: First Blood on my HDTV and DVD player. We're both just sitting on our asses paying a ridiculous amount of money to be entertained. Entertainment is entertainment, even entertainment that was created this year (rather than 400 years ago) with corporate backing, whether you consider it worthy or not.
I'm a big fan of wide screen, which is why I was so disappointed with the DVD for Shawshank Redemption (one of my favorite movies), which was advertised as wide screen. When I did a side by side comparison with it and my full frame version on VHS, I found that the "widescreen" version was just the full frame version with top and bottom cropped. Very disappointing.
First of all, I don't know what the deal is with "shift-right click". Maybe I'm missing something simple here, but all I need to do is right click. If I shift-right click, I get the wrong menu (I get a menu that refers to the space around the file (desktop, file manager view, etc.), not the file itself). If I right click, I only get the "Open With..." option if the file extension doesn't already have an association. Once the file has an association, the "Open With..." option is replaced with an "Open" option, thus removing your ability to change the association via this menu.
Also, under the File Associations tab under windows explorer, not ALL file extensions are represented. Example:
Someone asks me to look at a script created by program FooScripter. The the file he sends me is called script.t (notice the ".t" extension). I do not have FooScripter installed on my machine, so I right-click on the file and choose "Open With...". I choose notepad, but I forget to uncheck the "Always use this program" box (which I think should be unchecked by default, but maybe that's just me). So now I have this file association that I didn't mean to make. According to windows, it is now a "T_file". It is, however, for a reason I can't figure out, not an association that has representation in the "File Associations" tab in windows explorer. This is the first place I looked to get rid of it. To make a long story less long, the only way to fix this was to change it by hand in the registry. (Lesson in mind numbing tediousness, try searching your registry for the correct instances of "t".)
Anyway, based on this experience, I think the Salon article makes a good point. Changing file extensions is not always as easy as some of you are trying to imply.
I love the Minutemen, and I grew up listening to the Dead Kennedy's; I know exactly what you're talking about (they haven't banned NoMeansNo, either). You have to realize who made this list, though. You can't ban something if you don't know of its existance. I doubt if these groups are on their playlists anyway, so there is no need to ban them.
I'm a little confused by this. I don't know what the issue is here, but I do know that there are companies that sell dual boot systems. GamePC is one of them. I can get a system that boots Red Hat 7.1 and/or one of the current Windows flavors (ME, 98SE, or 2000).
Given a snippet a code (we'll call it foo.c), assume for the point of this example that it does what I need it to do, and I can't figure out any other way to do it. If foo.c is under the GPL, and if I want my program to work, I am legally obligated to make the rest of my program open source. If I work for a company that will not open source its work, then I lose. Too bad. If foo.c is under the BSD license, I can use it as long as I give credit where credit is due. Given this example, and withholding any value judgments ("The GPL is free because you are free to not work for that company"), it is quite clear that the GPL is more restrictive than the BSD license. Some people have a problem with that. Some people don't. Some people applaud the restriction. It doesn't change the fact that the GPL is not as free (as in freedom to do with it whatever you wish) as the BSD license, which was the original poster's point.
Someone made the analogy of (paraphrased) "Your freedom to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose." Well, the question applies here, too. Am I more free if you are not allowed to hit me, or am I more free if I'm allowed to hit you back? Personally, being physically non-violent, I prefer the former. That doesn't necessarily make it more free.
Personification. Just like information (or software) "wants" to be free.
Don't be such a ninny. Argue the point. I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying that technically the BSD license seems freer (in a dictionary sense) than the GPL only because it allows you to do whatever you want. The GPL, IIRC (I'm not a license guru), mandates that if you use GPL code in your code you must GPL the entire thing (if this is not what the GPL says, then I am sorry for making the incorrect assumption). This is forced freedom. Which is better is all a matter of personal preference, but it appears to me that his point is valid in that the GPL places more demands on those who wish to use GPL code than the BSD license puts on those who wish to use BSD code.
Sorry, I was wrong. The announcement is still there.
It looks like you're right; I just went to the OpenBSD page, and it looks as if the announcement of the June 1 release date has been pulled. This particularly sucks because I just pre-ordered last night.