They knew damn well what code was in Linux, they contributed code and they have repeatedly used the services of the community to conduct they're[sic] business. These are not cherry virgins who don't know how the world works. They know exactly what they are doing.
And if you can prove in a court of law that the above is true you will make IBM very happy.
For others, the government's use of that tax money is the only way they'll ever see those services (no matter how poorly the services are implemented or how wasteful they are).
In the specific case of the government service in question there are many private institutions eager to extend privately funded scholarships to qualified individuals. Most of the government welfare programs are in fact mirrored by private entities. Many of the entities even get gov't money to provide these services (another layer of inefficiency) and many survive on private donations. There is evidence which suggests that charitable giving would be higher if taxes were lower.
Now, we could debate on wether those people who are reliant on those tax dollars are just lazy slobs living off of the productive members of society. Or we could debate about wether or not affluent people who weren't taxed would act in society's interest and fund the under-priviledged.
How about we just agree that regardless how these individuals got in this situation they are in need of help. Let's stick to debating the most efficient way to help them and leave out the strawmen.
YOU may be able to spend your tax money in a more efficient manner than the government can, but this is also not universally true. I hear this argument again and again, but the problem is that the argument is coming from intelligent, self-motivated, secure people. Of course a person in that position could manage his money/pay for his services more efficiently than a beurocracy. But now, lets look at the case of a person with less capabilities, less motivation, and less of a future. Do you expect me to believe that every person in America would act intelligently if given our tax dollars rather than government services? Hardly.
But we aren't talking about what the gov't is going to do with those people's money we are talking about what the gov't is going to do with MY money. You stipulate that I could spend my own money more efficiently, but go on to argue that I should stil give it to the gov't because someone else can't efficiently spend their money. That doesn't sound very fair to ME. It's also contrary to the principles this country was founded on.
However, your view is quite understandable to me. I, too, feel I could manage my money far better than the government. However, I am willing to sacrifice some of my wealth (which is not considerable, I might add) so that others are able to live decent and honorable lives. My route to less taxation is through quality education (for everybody), reducing corruption and waste in government agencies, and reducing the power of the corporate dollar on governmental policies.
I would never argue against you making any sacfifices you CHOOSE to make in order to better the lives of those around you. If you are going to be making sacrifices of your inconsiderable wealth, shouldn't you have control over where and how it is spent?
It's one thing if you are voting for the libertarian candidate because they support gov't getting the hell out of your personal life. It's another thing if you are voting for the progressive democrat, who will be happy to strip all of your civil liberties and tax the lint out of your pockets in order to build a socialist state, just because she supports your right to smoke a bowl.
Slashing higher education in a state basically amounts to telling companies "Nope, you won't find an educated workforce HERE!". Companies that offer good jobs requiring educated people will simply move on.
I didn't comment on slashing higher education, only slashing the TAXES earmarked for higher education. Only a Democrat would think that those two things are equal.
Riddle me this. How is it that Texas has some of the best and largest public universities and yet imposes exactly zero state property or income tax? Texas also doesn't seem to need a welfare state to attract big technology companies either.
And since this thread is about CA, I'll point out what a perfect example of the tax and spend mentality their state gov't is.
So, what they are saying, is even if you didn't know that you were using infringing code, you are still liable for using it?
Actually, I'm saying that's what he's saying.
If this is true, then if you are distributing infringing code, and don't know that you are distributing infringing code, you are still liable for distributing it.
That would seem to be SCO's argument.
If that's so, then SCO is liable for distributing their own code under the GPL.
Liable for what? Infringing their own copyright? Before you argue that SCO legally released their code under the GPL even though they didn't know it, keep in mind that for the GPL to be valid it has to be a legally enforceable contract. You can't trick someone into making a contract. SCO was essentially duped into redistributing their own code.
Sorry, but that's a crappy issue to pick to be a one issue voter on. How about a candidate's position on the free market, or right to privacy, or civil rights, or gun contol, or welfare, or things that actualy affect most people?
Are you serious? You would rather they raise taxes and take more of your money just so they can give it back to you in the form of better benefits? You should realize that bureacracies always give you back less than what you put in, so you'd be better off keeping the money you would have paid in higher taxes. Or were you hoping that the state would raise everyone ELSE's taxes so that you could get a raise? The difference in the long run is that you might loose your job, but the rest of the residents of NM won't be titheing to the state to support you.
What he's saying is that the fact that you used the code under what you believed was a valid GPL license does not indemify you from copyright infringement. The point is that even if the GPL is valid the end user is still responsible for any infringement.
How do you make the artilery not blow up the sensors? The enemy could just send a bunch of expendables into the area to do calisthenics until your artilery gratiously destroys your entire array. In most battle the US Army has fought in recent history they have been at a significant numerical disadvantage. None of our enemies would think twice about sending scouts into your minefield to take it out at the cost of their lives.
How is my quote misleading? I quoted the exact same paragraph you did. I am also aware that the TSPE agrees with your interpretation. Section 20(a) doesn't say a thing about what you do or call yourself, it's only about how you represent yourself to the public.
Regardless what you or the TSPE would like to believe, having "Software Engineer" does not mean to a reasonable person that you have any legal qualifications in engineering. OTOH if your business cards have your title as "Licensed Software Engineer" I can see that being a problem.
Bottom line is it isn't my or your interpretation that matters. The real question is are you aware of anyone in Texas being sanctioned for calling themselves a Software Engineer without being a PE?
And since your nick is Captain Nitpick:
You said, "If you weren't P.E. certified, you couldn't legally call yourself an engineer in Texas. No exceptions."
Which is patently false. Whether in some cases a person representing themselves as a Software Engineer must be a PE is debatable. The assertion that they must be a PE in ALL cases is absurd, and in the more general case (Network Engineers, Train Engineers, etc) there are a wealth of exeptions.
But then again you could be worng, and look at that, YOU ARE!
The "Texas Engineering Practice Act" has a whole page of exceptions, but they call them "exemptions".
Lets see if we can find the relevant parts:
Section 20. EXEMPTIONS.
(a) The following persons shall be exempt from the licensure provisions of this Act, provided that such persons are not directly or indirectly represented or held out to the public to be legally qualified to engage in the practice of engineering:...SNIP...
(3) a person doing the actual work of installing, operating, repairing, or servicing locomotive or stationary engines, steam boilers, Diesel engines, internal combustion engines, refrigeration compressors and systems, hoisting engines, electrical engines, air conditioning equipment and systems, or mechanical and electrical, electronic or communications equipment and apparatus;....SNIP...
Well, that would seem to apply quite nicely not only to train engineers, but also software and systems engineers.
One idea I like is the circulation fee system. Instead of rewarding the non-use of money it rewards trading it quickly, thus creating a much higher amount of consumer spending, the engine that makes money powerful.
On the contrary, higher consumer spending is what drives inflation, which makes money LESS powerful.
Too bad the submitter got his facts wrong. From the story:
They also may get legal protection under the Safety Act of 2002 -- a tort-reform law that offers blanket lawsuit protections to makers of antiterrorism devices,
should those devices fail during a terrorist attack.
IOW you can't sue Lay's if your potato chips fail to protect you from small pox. Nobody has "blanket immunity" from anything. What is it going to take for the editors to read the stories and check the submitter's comment for accuracy?
I don't know the answer to your question, because I don't live there. I have lived in houses where the mailbox was on the street and the carrier drove down the street delivering mail. In those cercustances the carrier will not deliver if the mailbox is blocked. I have also lived in houses where the boxes or slots are on the house and the carrier walks. In those cases the carrier will not deliver if the box is missing or broken. How the carrier delivers mail on any particular route is up to the PO.
Obviously writing the note takes longer, but he'll only have to do it once. If he delivers the mail to a blocked mailbox he'll have to do it everyday. Then one day all the mailboxes on your street will be blocked and it will take the carrier a week to deliver all the mail. By leaving a note and no mail he is conditioning you not to park in front of the mailbox.
It's just possible that the folks at the post office know more about how to deliver mail efficiently than the average poster on slashdot.
That would make the electronic part the equivilent of a big expensive electronic marker. Here we use paper ballots that are like scantrons. You black out the bubble next to the guy you want to elect. Then it goes through the reader which either validates it and drops it in a box, or if you are stupid and can't mark a bubble spits it back out. You know immediately if your vote was counted, and you get the chance to correct it if you f*cked up.
Let's say I receive a speeding ticket in New York, and I go to court to fight it. I tell the judge that I am the King of Russia and as such enjoy sovereign immunity, and he believes me, and dismisses the case. That doesn't make me the King of Russia, and it doesn't cause Russia to become a monarchy. It doesn't mean that the United States has recognized me as the King of Russia. All it means is that I don't have to pay the ticket.
Main Entry: socialized medicine Function: noun Date: 1937 : medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation
Actually you are correct in comparing this to Kyoto. In both cases most of the world is bleating like sheep about some unsubstanciated issue that many experts agree won't be a problem for a long time. In both cases the bleating masses are upset that the US is rightfully not taking the bleating seriously. Well done.
He also assumed every Canadian voted. As long as the percentage of voter turnout is similar, the ratio holds. Or did you just want to get in your little anti-Republican jibe?
He seems to have some aversion to Mozilla. Maybe he should try Opera. Of course we all know by now that this troll is a Gator shill and will therefore continue insisting that it is the best thing since sliced bread.
Slashdot Mirror
They knew damn well what code was in Linux, they contributed code and they have repeatedly used the services of the community to conduct they're[sic] business. These are not cherry virgins who don't know how the world works. They know exactly what they are doing.
And if you can prove in a court of law that the above is true you will make IBM very happy.
For others, the government's use of that tax money is the only way they'll ever see those services (no matter how poorly the services are implemented or how wasteful they are).
In the specific case of the government service in question there are many private institutions eager to extend privately funded scholarships to qualified individuals. Most of the government welfare programs are in fact mirrored by private entities. Many of the entities even get gov't money to provide these services (another layer of inefficiency) and many survive on private donations. There is evidence which suggests that charitable giving would be higher if taxes were lower.
Now, we could debate on wether those people who are reliant on those tax dollars are just lazy slobs living off of the productive members of society. Or we could debate about wether or not affluent people who weren't taxed would act in society's interest and fund the under-priviledged.
How about we just agree that regardless how these individuals got in this situation they are in need of help. Let's stick to debating the most efficient way to help them and leave out the strawmen.
YOU may be able to spend your tax money in a more efficient manner than the government can, but this is also not universally true. I hear this argument again and again, but the problem is that the argument is coming from intelligent, self-motivated, secure people. Of course a person in that position could manage his money/pay for his services more efficiently than a beurocracy. But now, lets look at the case of a person with less capabilities, less motivation, and less of a future. Do you expect me to believe that every person in America would act intelligently if given our tax dollars rather than government services? Hardly.
But we aren't talking about what the gov't is going to do with those people's money we are talking about what the gov't is going to do with MY money. You stipulate that I could spend my own money more efficiently, but go on to argue that I should stil give it to the gov't because someone else can't efficiently spend their money. That doesn't sound very fair to ME. It's also contrary to the principles this country was founded on.
However, your view is quite understandable to me. I, too, feel I could manage my money far better than the government. However, I am willing to sacrifice some of my wealth (which is not considerable, I might add) so that others are able to live decent and honorable lives. My route to less taxation is through quality education (for everybody), reducing corruption and waste in government agencies, and reducing the power of the corporate dollar on governmental policies.
I would never argue against you making any sacfifices you CHOOSE to make in order to better the lives of those around you. If you are going to be making sacrifices of your inconsiderable wealth, shouldn't you have control over where and how it is spent?
It's one thing if you are voting for the libertarian candidate because they support gov't getting the hell out of your personal life. It's another thing if you are voting for the progressive democrat, who will be happy to strip all of your civil liberties and tax the lint out of your pockets in order to build a socialist state, just because she supports your right to smoke a bowl.
Slashing higher education in a state basically amounts to telling companies "Nope, you won't find an educated workforce HERE!". Companies that offer good jobs requiring educated people will simply move on.
I didn't comment on slashing higher education, only slashing the TAXES earmarked for higher education. Only a Democrat would think that those two things are equal.
Riddle me this. How is it that Texas has some of the best and largest public universities and yet imposes exactly zero state property or income tax? Texas also doesn't seem to need a welfare state to attract big technology companies either.
And since this thread is about CA, I'll point out what a perfect example of the tax and spend mentality their state gov't is.
So, what they are saying, is even if you didn't know that you were using infringing code, you are still liable for using it?
Actually, I'm saying that's what he's saying.
If this is true, then if you are distributing infringing code, and don't know that you are distributing infringing code, you are still liable for distributing it.
That would seem to be SCO's argument.
If that's so, then SCO is liable for distributing their own code under the GPL.
Liable for what? Infringing their own copyright? Before you argue that SCO legally released their code under the GPL even though they didn't know it, keep in mind that for the GPL to be valid it has to be a legally enforceable contract. You can't trick someone into making a contract. SCO was essentially duped into redistributing their own code.
Sorry, but that's a crappy issue to pick to be a one issue voter on. How about a candidate's position on the free market, or right to privacy, or civil rights, or gun contol, or welfare, or things that actualy affect most people?
Are you serious? You would rather they raise taxes and take more of your money just so they can give it back to you in the form of better benefits? You should realize that bureacracies always give you back less than what you put in, so you'd be better off keeping the money you would have paid in higher taxes. Or were you hoping that the state would raise everyone ELSE's taxes so that you could get a raise? The difference in the long run is that you might loose your job, but the rest of the residents of NM won't be titheing to the state to support you.
What he's saying is that the fact that you used the code under what you believed was a valid GPL license does not indemify you from copyright infringement. The point is that even if the GPL is valid the end user is still responsible for any infringement.
How do you make the artilery not blow up the sensors? The enemy could just send a bunch of expendables into the area to do calisthenics until your artilery gratiously destroys your entire array. In most battle the US Army has fought in recent history they have been at a significant numerical disadvantage. None of our enemies would think twice about sending scouts into your minefield to take it out at the cost of their lives.
$10,000 buys a lot of diesel.
How is my quote misleading? I quoted the exact same paragraph you did. I am also aware that the TSPE agrees with your interpretation. Section 20(a) doesn't say a thing about what you do or call yourself, it's only about how you represent yourself to the public.
Regardless what you or the TSPE would like to believe, having "Software Engineer" does not mean to a reasonable person that you have any legal qualifications in engineering. OTOH if your business cards have your title as "Licensed Software Engineer" I can see that being a problem.
Bottom line is it isn't my or your interpretation that matters. The real question is are you aware of anyone in Texas being sanctioned for calling themselves a Software Engineer without being a PE?
And since your nick is Captain Nitpick:
You said, "If you weren't P.E. certified, you couldn't legally call yourself an engineer in Texas. No exceptions."
Which is patently false. Whether in some cases a person representing themselves as a Software Engineer must be a PE is debatable. The assertion that they must be a PE in ALL cases is absurd, and in the more general case (Network Engineers, Train Engineers, etc) there are a wealth of exeptions.
The "Texas Engineering Practice Act" has a whole page of exceptions, but they call them "exemptions".
Lets see if we can find the relevant parts:
Well, that would seem to apply quite nicely not only to train engineers, but also software and systems engineers.
One idea I like is the circulation fee system. Instead of rewarding the non-use of money it rewards trading it quickly, thus creating a much higher amount of consumer spending, the engine that makes money powerful.
On the contrary, higher consumer spending is what drives inflation, which makes money LESS powerful.
IOW you can't sue Lay's if your potato chips fail to protect you from small pox. Nobody has "blanket immunity" from anything. What is it going to take for the editors to read the stories and check the submitter's comment for accuracy?
I don't know the answer to your question, because I don't live there. I have lived in houses where the mailbox was on the street and the carrier drove down the street delivering mail. In those cercustances the carrier will not deliver if the mailbox is blocked. I have also lived in houses where the boxes or slots are on the house and the carrier walks. In those cases the carrier will not deliver if the box is missing or broken. How the carrier delivers mail on any particular route is up to the PO.
Obviously writing the note takes longer, but he'll only have to do it once. If he delivers the mail to a blocked mailbox he'll have to do it everyday. Then one day all the mailboxes on your street will be blocked and it will take the carrier a week to deliver all the mail. By leaving a note and no mail he is conditioning you not to park in front of the mailbox.
It's just possible that the folks at the post office know more about how to deliver mail efficiently than the average poster on slashdot.
That would make the electronic part the equivilent of a big expensive electronic marker. Here we use paper ballots that are like scantrons. You black out the bubble next to the guy you want to elect. Then it goes through the reader which either validates it and drops it in a box, or if you are stupid and can't mark a bubble spits it back out. You know immediately if your vote was counted, and you get the chance to correct it if you f*cked up.
Let's say I receive a speeding ticket in New York, and I go to court to fight it. I tell the judge that I am the King of Russia and as such enjoy sovereign immunity, and he believes me, and dismisses the case. That doesn't make me the King of Russia, and it doesn't cause Russia to become a monarchy. It doesn't mean that the United States has recognized me as the King of Russia. All it means is that I don't have to pay the ticket.
Trust me, he's heard that one before.
From Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: socialized medicine
Function: noun
Date: 1937
: medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation
Sound familiar?
They have to let some die. Soylent Green is people.
Socialism Rules!
When reading and replying to this article please bear in mind that writers at Cnet never make technical errors.
Actually you are correct in comparing this to Kyoto. In both cases most of the world is bleating like sheep about some unsubstanciated issue that many experts agree won't be a problem for a long time. In both cases the bleating masses are upset that the US is rightfully not taking the bleating seriously. Well done.
He also assumed every Canadian voted. As long as the percentage of voter turnout is similar, the ratio holds. Or did you just want to get in your little anti-Republican jibe?
He seems to have some aversion to Mozilla. Maybe he should try Opera. Of course we all know by now that this troll is a Gator shill and will therefore continue insisting that it is the best thing since sliced bread.
The reason it works in our system is (I think) because each denomination is worth at least 2 times the next smaller denomination.