hell you got choices coming out your asses, so WTF are you bitching for? Vote with your wallet okay? But just because YOU don't like doesn't mean you get to tell ME or anyone else what device we should buy or what features it should have. If I was gonna buy one of these things, which I'm not BTW, I wanna try one of those $70 Android Indian pads the net has been buzzing about, but if I did and was actually gonna use this for real work I'd WANT it locked down, because if its one thing we've seen its that these things are giant targets for the malware guys!
First it's a matter of culture, which does and can effect every one of us. A culture where corporation control what you can or can't do with a computer is a culture detrimental to everyone. Second who has the keys? Locking your stuff up as long as you have a key is not problematic at all. What is is when the key is controlled solely by someone who is willing to sacrifice your interests and goals for the sake of their own.
Ford payed higher wages to reduce turnover. He was also fairly picky in who he hired. Average turnover in a factory job then was what it is for fast food today. Ford's biggest contribution was the assembly line, not the automobile, the productivity of which allowed him to do both of the things you mentioned.
Your math is off. With solar you still need to build a few coal plants anyway for when the sun isn't shinning, or build energy storage systems, which are far from free. In addition you put stress on rare materials that are hard to find pushing the price of solar cells up as they becomes more widely adopted. Also solar cells degrade over time.
Tomatoes- commercially harvested before they are ripe. Always better when fresh. Has to do with the economics of harvest and distribution. You can't mechanically handle ripe tomatoes, nor to they store well. Both factors make it very hard to get a good tomato in the grocery store. Nothing to do with GM
Potatoes, what are you talking about? I can easily find boiling potatoes at the grocery store. Russets are most popular not just for their shape, but their low sugar content, which reduces browning when they are fried in oil.
As for corn both sweet and flint not having insects or insect parts in them improves the flavor. Flint is the variety primarily expressed in thick smooth seed coat which protects from mechanical, insect, and fungal damage as well as holding less dirt. Dent is the variety primarily expressed in feed corn which has a large endosperm. However the food and feed systems are kept largely separate.
"Secondly, the further control of the world food market by corporations like monsanto who own the patents on food crops," They only have patents on certain lines, and in order to get the patents they have to submit seed for the line or parent lines in the case hybrids to national seed banks. Lastly you can back-cross GM-traits out of a line. You take the line, cross it with non-GM line with similar heritage. You take leaf-punches and test for the expression of the trait. You destroy every plant expressing the traits, and then repeat the process 7 more times. I think the patents are really more problematic than the GM's are.
Depends on how you do it really. Are these control diagrams and heat dissipation something novel or could anyone with and engineering degree and experience in laptop design figure it out?
Not just linux application, but vast parts of it's kernel are available under BSD licences. GEM, KMS, DRM and many of the drivers are availible under extremely permissive licences. The slower development of the BSD's is not I think due to the licence (as there are parts of the kernel that have quickly developed under that licence or similar ones) but that they are more closed in who they allow to contribute to the kernel and more cautious in what contributions they accept, and the fact that the development teams also do a great deal of work on user-space utilities. The best licence really depends on your intent for your code and the strategy you want to pursue for it's adoption.
Lets take a similar statement of fact. "Using a proprietary licence for a library gives those specific proprietary developers an advantage over all other developers, a library they can use, while all other developers may not"
Does it then follow that goal of any proprietary library is to block all other software?
No indeed, your logic is faulty. The goal is to out-compete other software, to provide more features than the competition, to align the practical with the moral.
Besides your objection would apply even more strongly to many proprietary project as they do no allow anyone the advantages of thier code. If we were to imagine RMS as the CEO or some corporation that controlled the copyrights for all of the GPL'd products his comments would seem perfectly mundane. Every proprietary developer competes in the same manner. The goal is to displace non-free software, which is categorically not the same as blocking it's use.
It is FUD. The GPL (any version) does not require anyone to release code at any time. What it says it that your legal right to distribute to distribute software or code covered by the GPL is contingent on the provision or offer of provision of the source. It does not take away an authors copyright of the code they do write, and does not attempt to prevent a release of that code should it replace the GPL parts with parts that are BSD or written in-house. The only way you could categoricly prevent someone from using original code and program design that they have written is though software patents, which RMS additionally opposes.
As to your second paragraph, it depends on what you mean by "the good". However merely referencing the same comment that you linked to it's not clear that Stallman would oppose adding a bright-line into the Open Document Formats, where merely saving code to the declared standard would not violate licences of existing implementations. Only if you implemented a new feature or extension would you need to release code or sufficient documentation for a programer to code such an extension onto existing implementations.
I really think GPL + a bright-line (which is what the LGPL does) can be better that a simple BSD when trying to engineer a new standard that competes with an existing standard.
First, it doesn't but it prevents the distribution of security fixes, leaving systems where it is still installed vulnerable to publicly available exploits.
Second nothing, you'll have to manage updates by yourself if you want the Sun JVK.
Third, not certain, but likely.
Fourth, no.
The first part is, the second part isn't. I have a right to an unburned house, but none to see any particular person thrown in jail. Crimes are torts against the body politic as a whole, and right of punishment is reserved to the same. As such the trial by jury is an important method to make sure such punishments are commensurate with the interests and norms of said body. Also, even should criminal proceedings fail, I still may make my own claims against the offender to recover damages that I have suffered.
So-called political representatives are under no obligation whatsoever to keep campaign promises, and the also all tend to be from the same socio-economic background. There is no strong reason to believe they actually are representative in any legal or statistical sense. Having twelve people selected at random all agree that some at is not a crime, is a pretty good statistical indication that most people in the community would agree. Let's examine the edge case. If 51% believe and 49% disagree, then the chance a jury would outright acquit on that basis alone is less than one in five thousand.
Beside you mistake the argument. The theory of democracy in general and nullification is that most people are good and civicly minded, and as such will take due diligence when considering decisions that may effect other people.
Failing to do justice is not the same as doing injustice. It is better to let many guilty men go free than to punish an innocent one.
And your argument is fairly weak in a republican or democratic forum. They are the same people who make the laws directly or indirectly in the first place, if they can't be trusted to do the right thing most of the time, we're all fucked anyways.
Roe v. Wade never touched a jury. Lower courts dismissed the case for lack of standing, it was appealed several times. Supreme court agreed that yes the plaintiff lacked standing, and even asserted that nobody is likely to have standing on that set of facts... however they claimed a public interest exception and handed a ruling down anyways. Seriously go read the actual opinion.
To willingly declare someone guilty of an unjust law is an anathema to the substance of Justice. Jury nullification is black letter law, a concept embedded in the very roots of common law and enshrined in the Magna Carta. One of the pre-eminent works on the subject: http://librivox.org/essay-on-the-trial-by-jury-by-lysander-spooner/
I believe Unix originally had a 6-letter limit of filenames. Manual is 7 letters, hence they had to shorten it. In addition when you only have six letter to work with, making them case-sensitive squares the possible file-names.
Using legal privileges to foist external costs on the public at large damages the main advantage of the free markets, while a slightly higher direct price upon some forms of capital does not. The main advantage of the free market is that it is a process of creative destruction that continually allocates resources to uses that are more and more valued. Unchecked externalaties interfere and thwart this process, and disproportionately benefit those who have shirked those costs. Good economic analysis involves looking at both the seen and unseen.
Bank accounts are actually set up as trusts, not as a claim on a proportion of assets or a say in management. Credit Unions where there is such a claim by account holders, have by and large avoided the whole sub-prime fiasco.
"How exactly am I supposed to know this? By flying to shareholder meetings with the $25 in dividends I might make in a year?"
Pay a portion of the dividend or stock price to an insurer, let those anal-retentive actuarial types worry about quantifying the risks.
Fraud is pretty much the only reason (beside criminal corruption) the corporate veil is broken nowadays, but only against those who were complicit. However let's examine more common cases, simple debt and negligence. Anyone who invests no matter who small knows or should know that insolvency is a risk of doing business. (However this is a risk that can be spread and mitigated) Liability for negligence usually follows and agent-principal relationship, even when no fault is displayed on the part of the principle. For example an employer is liable for all negligent acts (or inaction) of employees during the course of their employment. (However this has not prevented employment from occurring, as negligence is an insurable and sometimes waivable risk.) There are of course costs for doing this, but the costs are there no matter what. It's just the internalization of the costs rather than externalizing them. There is a flaw in the logic that says such a scheme would destroy the market for capital. If the risk is manageable and "worth it" (pays out more than it costs) then shifting the costs to those who benefit most from them only makes sense. Why should non-investors bear the risks of investors? While you ostensibly speak on behalf of capital and markets, you fail to place any faith in their ability to manage mundane risks.
"I got some news for you... every company (with few exceptions) needed an IPO to go public. Before that, they had to raise capital. The proposal to make investors liable would raise the bar so high, that new businesses and small business would have a significant and oft insurmountable barrier to entry."
That's not the only way business can operate. Check out the Mondragon Corporation.
In addition liability would be managed the same way to manage it in the same way as a sole proprietorship. You buy liability insurance, the cost of which is roughly proportional to the perceived risks that current management policies are taking. Any company that represents more than a token amount of stockholders could analyze the records (any insurer below that would have to cooperate with other insurers to get info), which would reduce the inspections to a manageable level.
You've set up a false dichotomy between everyone regulating a corporation for themselves and government regulating corporations for everybody. There is a middle ground and room for market mechanisms to solve the problem. Of course you want a reasonable bottom level the government assures, but complex industry-specific regulation often fails due to regulatory capture, and the fact regulators lack the implicit knowledge necessary to manage the risk.
Externalizing the costs of failed corporations onto the public at large is destructive, unfair, rife with moral hazard, and favors the established players over everyone else. The original point of the corporation was to promote public works such as roads, schools, dams and canals, and not to protect the profiteering of a relative few.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly and flowing water is public (state) property anyways.
hell you got choices coming out your asses, so WTF are you bitching for? Vote with your wallet okay? But just because YOU don't like doesn't mean you get to tell ME or anyone else what device we should buy or what features it should have. If I was gonna buy one of these things, which I'm not BTW, I wanna try one of those $70 Android Indian pads the net has been buzzing about, but if I did and was actually gonna use this for real work I'd WANT it locked down, because if its one thing we've seen its that these things are giant targets for the malware guys!
First it's a matter of culture, which does and can effect every one of us. A culture where corporation control what you can or can't do with a computer is a culture detrimental to everyone. Second who has the keys? Locking your stuff up as long as you have a key is not problematic at all. What is is when the key is controlled solely by someone who is willing to sacrifice your interests and goals for the sake of their own.
Ford payed higher wages to reduce turnover. He was also fairly picky in who he hired. Average turnover in a factory job then was what it is for fast food today. Ford's biggest contribution was the assembly line, not the automobile, the productivity of which allowed him to do both of the things you mentioned.
Your math is off. With solar you still need to build a few coal plants anyway for when the sun isn't shinning, or build energy storage systems, which are far from free. In addition you put stress on rare materials that are hard to find pushing the price of solar cells up as they becomes more widely adopted. Also solar cells degrade over time.
Tomatoes- commercially harvested before they are ripe. Always better when fresh. Has to do with the economics of harvest and distribution. You can't mechanically handle ripe tomatoes, nor to they store well. Both factors make it very hard to get a good tomato in the grocery store. Nothing to do with GM
Potatoes, what are you talking about? I can easily find boiling potatoes at the grocery store. Russets are most popular not just for their shape, but their low sugar content, which reduces browning when they are fried in oil.
As for corn both sweet and flint not having insects or insect parts in them improves the flavor. Flint is the variety primarily expressed in thick smooth seed coat which protects from mechanical, insect, and fungal damage as well as holding less dirt. Dent is the variety primarily expressed in feed corn which has a large endosperm. However the food and feed systems are kept largely separate.
"Secondly, the further control of the world food market by corporations like monsanto who own the patents on food crops,"
They only have patents on certain lines, and in order to get the patents they have to submit seed for the line or parent lines in the case hybrids to national seed banks. Lastly you can back-cross GM-traits out of a line. You take the line, cross it with non-GM line with similar heritage. You take leaf-punches and test for the expression of the trait. You destroy every plant expressing the traits, and then repeat the process 7 more times. I think the patents are really more problematic than the GM's are.
It probably could, but you wouldn't get graphics acceleration for it. (proprietary driver). It may be able to do windows 8 (but only in metro mode)
Depends on how you do it really. Are these control diagrams and heat dissipation something novel or could anyone with and engineering degree and experience in laptop design figure it out?
Not just linux application, but vast parts of it's kernel are available under BSD licences. GEM, KMS, DRM and many of the drivers are availible under extremely permissive licences. The slower development of the BSD's is not I think due to the licence (as there are parts of the kernel that have quickly developed under that licence or similar ones) but that they are more closed in who they allow to contribute to the kernel and more cautious in what contributions they accept, and the fact that the development teams also do a great deal of work on user-space utilities. The best licence really depends on your intent for your code and the strategy you want to pursue for it's adoption.
Lets take a similar statement of fact. "Using a proprietary licence for a library gives those specific proprietary developers an advantage over all other developers, a library they can use, while all other developers may not"
Does it then follow that goal of any proprietary library is to block all other software?
No indeed, your logic is faulty. The goal is to out-compete other software, to provide more features than the competition, to align the practical with the moral.
Besides your objection would apply even more strongly to many proprietary project as they do no allow anyone the advantages of thier code. If we were to imagine RMS as the CEO or some corporation that controlled the copyrights for all of the GPL'd products his comments would seem perfectly mundane. Every proprietary developer competes in the same manner. The goal is to displace non-free software, which is categorically not the same as blocking it's use.
It is FUD. The GPL (any version) does not require anyone to release code at any time. What it says it that your legal right to distribute to distribute software or code covered by the GPL is contingent on the provision or offer of provision of the source. It does not take away an authors copyright of the code they do write, and does not attempt to prevent a release of that code should it replace the GPL parts with parts that are BSD or written in-house. The only way you could categoricly prevent someone from using original code and program design that they have written is though software patents, which RMS additionally opposes.
As to your second paragraph, it depends on what you mean by "the good". However merely referencing the same comment that you linked to it's not clear that Stallman would oppose adding a bright-line into the Open Document Formats, where merely saving code to the declared standard would not violate licences of existing implementations. Only if you implemented a new feature or extension would you need to release code or sufficient documentation for a programer to code such an extension onto existing implementations.
I really think GPL + a bright-line (which is what the LGPL does) can be better that a simple BSD when trying to engineer a new standard that competes with an existing standard.
First, it doesn't but it prevents the distribution of security fixes, leaving systems where it is still installed vulnerable to publicly available exploits. Second nothing, you'll have to manage updates by yourself if you want the Sun JVK. Third, not certain, but likely. Fourth, no.
Cell phones are the low-hanging fruit. Much easier to pass a law against them then to actually make drivers drive any more carefully.
The first part is, the second part isn't. I have a right to an unburned house, but none to see any particular person thrown in jail. Crimes are torts against the body politic as a whole, and right of punishment is reserved to the same. As such the trial by jury is an important method to make sure such punishments are commensurate with the interests and norms of said body. Also, even should criminal proceedings fail, I still may make my own claims against the offender to recover damages that I have suffered.
So-called political representatives are under no obligation whatsoever to keep campaign promises, and the also all tend to be from the same socio-economic background. There is no strong reason to believe they actually are representative in any legal or statistical sense. Having twelve people selected at random all agree that some at is not a crime, is a pretty good statistical indication that most people in the community would agree. Let's examine the edge case. If 51% believe and 49% disagree, then the chance a jury would outright acquit on that basis alone is less than one in five thousand.
Beside you mistake the argument. The theory of democracy in general and nullification is that most people are good and civicly minded, and as such will take due diligence when considering decisions that may effect other people.
Abuse is not an argument against proper use.
Failing to do justice is not the same as doing injustice. It is better to let many guilty men go free than to punish an innocent one.
And your argument is fairly weak in a republican or democratic forum. They are the same people who make the laws directly or indirectly in the first place, if they can't be trusted to do the right thing most of the time, we're all fucked anyways.
Tails I win, heads you lose.
Roe v. Wade never touched a jury. Lower courts dismissed the case for lack of standing, it was appealed several times. Supreme court agreed that yes the plaintiff lacked standing, and even asserted that nobody is likely to have standing on that set of facts... however they claimed a public interest exception and handed a ruling down anyways. Seriously go read the actual opinion.
To willingly declare someone guilty of an unjust law is an anathema to the substance of Justice. Jury nullification is black letter law, a concept embedded in the very roots of common law and enshrined in the Magna Carta. One of the pre-eminent works on the subject: http://librivox.org/essay-on-the-trial-by-jury-by-lysander-spooner/
Actually once you figure out the hourly rate by dividing 288.0 by 40 to get 7.2, it's the only one that fits, since ?.2 * ?9 is going to be ??.8
Lead (the metal) is a homophone for led, which would be gramaticly correct in the sentence.
I believe Unix originally had a 6-letter limit of filenames. Manual is 7 letters, hence they had to shorten it. In addition when you only have six letter to work with, making them case-sensitive squares the possible file-names.
Using legal privileges to foist external costs on the public at large damages the main advantage of the free markets, while a slightly higher direct price upon some forms of capital does not. The main advantage of the free market is that it is a process of creative destruction that continually allocates resources to uses that are more and more valued. Unchecked externalaties interfere and thwart this process, and disproportionately benefit those who have shirked those costs. Good economic analysis involves looking at both the seen and unseen.
Bank accounts are actually set up as trusts, not as a claim on a proportion of assets or a say in management. Credit Unions where there is such a claim by account holders, have by and large avoided the whole sub-prime fiasco.
"How exactly am I supposed to know this? By flying to shareholder meetings with the $25 in dividends I might make in a year?" Pay a portion of the dividend or stock price to an insurer, let those anal-retentive actuarial types worry about quantifying the risks.
Fraud is pretty much the only reason (beside criminal corruption) the corporate veil is broken nowadays, but only against those who were complicit.
However let's examine more common cases, simple debt and negligence. Anyone who invests no matter who small knows or should know that insolvency is a risk of doing business. (However this is a risk that can be spread and mitigated) Liability for negligence usually follows and agent-principal relationship, even when no fault is displayed on the part of the principle. For example an employer is liable for all negligent acts (or inaction) of employees during the course of their employment. (However this has not prevented employment from occurring, as negligence is an insurable and sometimes waivable risk.)
There are of course costs for doing this, but the costs are there no matter what. It's just the internalization of the costs rather than externalizing them.
There is a flaw in the logic that says such a scheme would destroy the market for capital. If the risk is manageable and "worth it" (pays out more than it costs) then shifting the costs to those who benefit most from them only makes sense. Why should non-investors bear the risks of investors? While you ostensibly speak on behalf of capital and markets, you fail to place any faith in their ability to manage mundane risks.
"I got some news for you... every company (with few exceptions) needed an IPO to go public. Before that, they had to raise capital. The proposal to make investors liable would raise the bar so high, that new businesses and small business would have a significant and oft insurmountable barrier to entry."
That's not the only way business can operate. Check out the Mondragon Corporation.
In addition liability would be managed the same way to manage it in the same way as a sole proprietorship. You buy liability insurance, the cost of which is roughly proportional to the perceived risks that current management policies are taking. Any company that represents more than a token amount of stockholders could analyze the records (any insurer below that would have to cooperate with other insurers to get info), which would reduce the inspections to a manageable level.
You've set up a false dichotomy between everyone regulating a corporation for themselves and government regulating corporations for everybody. There is a middle ground and room for market mechanisms to solve the problem. Of course you want a reasonable bottom level the government assures, but complex industry-specific regulation often fails due to regulatory capture, and the fact regulators lack the implicit knowledge necessary to manage the risk.
Externalizing the costs of failed corporations onto the public at large is destructive, unfair, rife with moral hazard, and favors the established players over everyone else. The original point of the corporation was to promote public works such as roads, schools, dams and canals, and not to protect the profiteering of a relative few.