If Russia were to support this behavior, they would be violating several international agreements, and would threaten the practical use of WIPO, the WTO, and international agreements in general. This isn't a good thing, and given Russia's dependancy on U.S. capital to rebuild their broken economy, I don't forsee it happening.
It would seem that you're also not familiar with how world economics works. Perhaps you should swallow that hatred for U.S. citizens, and use the energy to read =)
I suggest researching WIPO, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the TRIPS agreement, and the WTO.
U.S. citizens are by far not the only people that participate in predatory economics, with the end goal being monopolies. Capitalism lends itself to this sort of problem, especially in cultures that put emphasis on selfishness.
There seems little to warrant the use of an artifical language, when English has emerged as the dominant scientific and business language. Certainly it shouldn't be expected that everyone everywhere will use English for communication, but its dominance as the convergence language isn't apt to be usurped by Esperanto.
For non-business related, or perhaps also non-multinational business related communication, individual natural languages will probably remain the same. This is, of course, one of the reasons we're moving all of this technology from ASCII to Unicode, is it not?
It would also seem that an artificial language would have a large barrier to entry, due to the limited number of people that know them, the lack of a cultural presence to preserve them, and the need for their existance at all.
I would just like to say that Pepsi doesn't own McDonald's. I was apparently too anxious to get it out there, and it landed in the Pepsi multinational conglomerate's holdings by accident. I apologize for this stupidity.
How about an evil corporation that sues a single programmer and then later Creative Labs for attempting to bring Glide support to non-3dfx hardware, instead of releasing video accelerators that people would buy?
Matrox seems to be the moral company to buy from, but I still get plenty of mileage out of my TNT. nVidia makes some good video cards, but their enthusiasm about embracing non-Microsoft operating systems is rather lackluster.
They put all of the functionality of GDI into the silicon, so it doesn't need to be done in software. This has been standard of most cards since some of early Matrox cards, I think.
And yes, you could use some of the acceleration for X.
You stated that success was a factor of knowledge and ability. This is specifically what the statement regarding the cap of wages depending on formal education is targeted at, and much was said. Being poor, in the U.S., is lacking sufficient capital to live well, on your own.
Everything that you do to further yourself, can be converted into capital, and the return capital you can recieve from this action. Formal education is exactly this; an investment to increase returned capital.
The effects of being poor are much more significant than education, and being poor does not hinge solely on education, however education is yet another thing denied to the poor.
Education should not rely on grants and loans specifically targeted at certain racial or religous groups, nor is the limited support offered, capable of getting a poor individual through college. These ethnic and religous grants and loans also do not help poor white individuals. Yes, there is aid, but not enough. Students are forced into taking out many loans, or are simply incapable of being presented as college material due to the misfortunes that they suffer as a side-effect of being poor.
I don't paticularly care whether or not you agree that a predatory economic system is doomed to subject countless individuals to poverty, lead to every market being divided up by giant conglomorates, or any of the other failings of capitalism, or any economic system that poses citizen against citizen. If you can sleep well at night knowing you support economic fuedalism, then that's entirely your business.
The U.S.S.R and China are also not exactly examples of equality based economics. I'm sorry that you were subjected to an even more corrupt and broken system than the U.S.'s. It's an unfortunate part of current life.
In the U.S. you are rewarded based upon the amount of capital you can possibly supply your master with, or upon the current supply/demand ratio of your skills. This is a system were a self-righteous and arrogant Perl programmer has a higher valuation than the individuals supplying you with food, or the people educating your children. A society where Britney Spears is worth more than the individuals that constructed your house. And throughout all of these, regardless of their paticular value, someone who is doing nothing at all, or very little, collects the majority of the return of even their efforts.
It would be wise to not equate human nature with your own personal ill-will. If you have some desire to be more important, or worth more than someone else, then label it as yourself. Certainly there is no shortage of those that share your somewhat short-sighted views.
There will always be a predatory nature to people's behaviorisms, for as long as it's encouraged. For as long as the BMW determines that yes, you are important, I'm sure there will be individuals, such as yourself, that think that they should somehow be entitled to a decent life, while someone else can't.
The U.S. model of economics lends itself to consolidation of corporations until the market is divided amongst a small number of large corporations. Pepsi (Frito Lay, Taco Bell, McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Pepsi Arena), Coke, Nike, Sony, Toshiba, RCA, Intel, AMD, Microsoft, IBM, AOL/TimeWarner, AT&T, so on and so on and so on. This is a model of competition in its smallest possible form. Where the greatest amount of competition lies in how much of their production they can move to countries without strong civil rights and livable minimum wages. It promotes parasitic behavior, through enticing people to control more and more capital, regardless of the practical nature (Bill Gates, Ted Turner,...), and investors (often times giant corporations), all of whom do little or no work.
If anything, this is more of a troll than the parent post.
You'll note that most institutions will cap future earning based upon education. Those with a higher level of formal education will almost always make more, doing the same thing, than an individual without a degree.
As for knowledge, this is a byproduct of education, whether formal or otherwise. Those that are poor, and live in poor environments, are statistically less capable of pulling themselves out of these environments, simply due to the inability to secure a meaningful higher education. It's hard to learn computer science, if you can't afford a computer, very much a formal degree in Computer Science. It's harder still to become an attorney, without formal education in law. This is true of any skilled labor, regardless of the amount of effort you put into it. If you are unable to secure resources, you are unable to educate yourself, very much have someone else educate you.
Poor people remain poor because of our broken predatory economic system. There will always be a much larger demand for janitors than there will be for CEOs of Microsoft. Continually, people that do less and less actual work themselves, and rather use the capital of others, make more than educators, construction workers, farmers, the poor malnurished people that made your clothes in another country, because it was cheaper to hire labor there. For as long as there are a few rich people controlling the majority of wealth, there will be countless poor all over the country, and the world.
I don't blame you, per se, but it does seem that people view this as a revolution in the "right direction" for education. Really, though, this University seems to cater to a small group of people, that are not only intelligent, but already capable of having earned a meaningful degree at an educational institution. This group is made even smaller, by the need to repay loans after graduation from an acredited University. So the lack of tuition is somewhat useless, as far as the large majority of even intelligent people is concerned. You, of course, haven't stated that you intended your University to be non-exclusive, so I'm not attempting to say you're misleading. In fact, you made your elitest mentality clear several times, in the follow ups of the original Slashdot article.
My question, though, is do you feel that this sort of exclusiveness is a model that you would think others should follow, in their attempts of creating a tuition-free educational institution? Shouldn't the point of a free education be to allow those that might not otherwise be able to attend an acredited institution, as well as those capable, to do so? Which is more important, allowing a free education to those that chose another field, only to find that CS can now make them more money, or to liberate the masses from the shackles of predatory economics?
Technically speaking, a Renaissance man is an individual with a diverse intellectual interests. Such as Leonardo da Vinci, who was interested in painting, engineering, philosophy,... It doesn't mean the individual must know everything, but rather they have a truly meaningful interest and understanding of many fields.
Of course what one considers merit is relative. Obviously you are speaking in a strictly moral or physical achievement sense; Bill Gates has not physically himself earned his income, nor has he come by it through playing fair.
But of course his actions have earned him his money, regardless of the more moral merit that you're looking for.
It's a matter of predatory economics. You can be a large fat herd animal, or a lithe hunter. While the herd animal spends its days grazing and getting fatter, the hunter stalks the weakest of the prey, and profits from the large amount of calories the herd animal has "earned." Certainly the hunter has "earned" his calories, even though he doesn't spend his days grazing.
And of course the species that thrives the most is the one that can successfuly survive and reproduce the most effectively.
Of course predatory economics isn't just or fair, and doesn't fit well into a belief system of equality. For certainly if there is a top of the food chain of business, there has to be a lot of people being fed upon.
Though I believe the BSD-like licenses are perfectly fine, and that everyone should just use what they like, I have to say you're not exactly taking the moral high ground here.
> If you aren't a redneck, you don't critisize > other people for what license they like.
This is rude, and really no better than tossing water on a grease fire. You're not going to change anyone's mind by saying "You're a redneck if you disagree with me!"
Had you left that last sentence off, and spelled proprietary correctly, you'd have a better chance of appealing to people. Still, the topic is a dead horse, so perhaps it's best to just stop beating it.
Use what you like, and let others hate what they hate. They're not rednecks; they simply have different idealogies.
"Some open-source licenses may go a little too far," he said. "It's one thing to facilitate open access, but another to demand it. That's what you are trying to get away from." In the end, revolutionaries could do more to marginalize the operating system through zealous adherence to a misguided interpretation of the open-source movement.
It doesn't really seem to matter what Caldera is trying to move away from. They don't really represent the "open source movement", but rather their own corporate interests. If they have a desire to create closed source proprietary software, then they should be basing it on BSD or public domain software, and not GPL'd software. No one forced them to use these more restrictive licenses.
And the article's bit on a misguided interpretation of the open source movement is rather comical. Given that neither the CEO of Caldera, nor the author of the article are really in a position to claim what open source movement is about. A large faction of the movement isn't writing software so a corporation can come by and take it and profit off it, without any concerns as to the reasons they released the software in the first place. If they don't agree with the philosophy of the GPL, then there is other software under less restrictive licenses. However, For them to say the followers of the GPL are misunderstanding the open source movement, is crazy.
It would appear, given their plug for StarOffice, that Caldera, having benefited from the fruits of the labor of countless people, are now ready to abandon open source software and paint it as a movement of raving lunatics attempting to stifle the creativity of companies.
Slashdot Mirror
If Russia were to support this behavior, they would be violating several international agreements, and would threaten the practical use of WIPO, the WTO, and international agreements in general. This isn't a good thing, and given Russia's dependancy on U.S. capital to rebuild their broken economy, I don't forsee it happening.
It would seem that you're also not familiar with how world economics works. Perhaps you should swallow that hatred for U.S. citizens, and use the energy to read =)
I suggest researching WIPO, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the TRIPS agreement, and the WTO.
No country is an island in global economics.
U.S. citizens are by far not the only people that participate in predatory economics, with the end goal being monopolies. Capitalism lends itself to this sort of problem, especially in cultures that put emphasis on selfishness.
Perhaps had I not changed thoughts mid-sentence, you'd understand.
"It would also seem that artificial languages would have..."
You seriously need to grow up, eh?
There seems little to warrant the use of an artifical language, when English has emerged as the dominant scientific and business language.
Certainly it shouldn't be expected that everyone everywhere will use English for communication, but its dominance as the convergence language isn't apt to be usurped by Esperanto.
For non-business related, or perhaps also non-multinational business related communication, individual natural languages will probably remain the same. This is, of course, one of the reasons we're moving all of this technology from ASCII to Unicode, is it not?
It would also seem that an artificial language would have a large barrier to entry, due to the limited number of people that know them, the lack of a cultural presence to preserve them, and the need for their existance at all.
I would just like to say that Pepsi doesn't own McDonald's. I was apparently too anxious to get it out there, and it landed in the Pepsi multinational conglomerate's holdings by accident.
I apologize for this stupidity.
How about an evil corporation that sues a single programmer and then later Creative Labs for attempting to bring Glide support to non-3dfx hardware, instead of releasing video accelerators that people would buy?
Matrox seems to be the moral company to buy from, but I still get plenty of mileage out of my TNT. nVidia makes some good video cards, but their enthusiasm about embracing non-Microsoft operating systems is rather lackluster.
They put all of the functionality of GDI into the silicon, so it doesn't need to be done in software. This has been standard of most cards since some of early Matrox cards, I think.
And yes, you could use some of the acceleration for X.
You stated that success was a factor of knowledge and ability.
...), and investors (often times giant corporations), all of whom do little or no work.
This is specifically what the statement regarding the cap of wages depending on formal education is targeted at, and much was said.
Being poor, in the U.S., is lacking sufficient capital to live well, on your own.
Everything that you do to further yourself, can be converted into capital, and the return capital you can recieve from this action. Formal education is exactly this; an investment to increase returned capital.
The effects of being poor are much more significant than education, and being poor does not hinge solely on education, however education is yet another thing denied to the poor.
Education should not rely on grants and loans specifically targeted at certain racial or religous groups, nor is the limited support offered, capable of getting a poor individual through college. These ethnic and religous grants and loans also do not help poor white individuals.
Yes, there is aid, but not enough. Students are forced into taking out many loans, or are simply incapable of being presented as college material due to the misfortunes that they suffer as a side-effect of being poor.
I don't paticularly care whether or not you agree that a predatory economic system is doomed to subject countless individuals to poverty, lead to every market being divided up by giant conglomorates, or any of the other failings of capitalism, or any economic system that poses citizen against citizen. If you can sleep well at night knowing you support economic fuedalism, then that's entirely your business.
The U.S.S.R and China are also not exactly examples of equality based economics. I'm sorry that you were subjected to an even more corrupt and broken system than the U.S.'s. It's an unfortunate part of current life.
In the U.S. you are rewarded based upon the amount of capital you can possibly supply your master with, or upon the current supply/demand ratio of your skills. This is a system were a self-righteous and arrogant Perl programmer has a higher valuation than the individuals supplying you with food, or the people educating your children. A society where Britney Spears is worth more than the individuals that constructed your house. And throughout all of these, regardless of their paticular value, someone who is doing nothing at all, or very little, collects the majority of the return of even their efforts.
It would be wise to not equate human nature with your own personal ill-will. If you have some desire to be more important, or worth more than someone else, then label it as yourself. Certainly there is no shortage of those that share your somewhat short-sighted views.
There will always be a predatory nature to people's behaviorisms, for as long as it's encouraged. For as long as the BMW determines that yes, you are important, I'm sure there will be individuals, such as yourself, that think that they should somehow be entitled to a decent life, while someone else can't.
The U.S. model of economics lends itself to consolidation of corporations until the market is divided amongst a small number of large corporations. Pepsi (Frito Lay, Taco Bell, McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Pepsi Arena), Coke, Nike, Sony, Toshiba, RCA, Intel, AMD, Microsoft, IBM, AOL/TimeWarner, AT&T, so on and so on and so on.
This is a model of competition in its smallest possible form. Where the greatest amount of competition lies in how much of their production they can move to countries without strong civil rights and livable minimum wages.
It promotes parasitic behavior, through enticing people to control more and more capital, regardless of the practical nature (Bill Gates, Ted Turner,
If anything, this is more of a troll than the parent post.
You'll note that most institutions will cap future earning based upon education. Those with a higher level of formal education will almost always make more, doing the same thing, than an individual without a degree.
As for knowledge, this is a byproduct of education, whether formal or otherwise. Those that are poor, and live in poor environments, are statistically less capable of pulling themselves out of these environments, simply due to the inability to secure a meaningful higher education. It's hard to learn computer science, if you can't afford a computer, very much a formal degree in Computer Science. It's harder still to become an attorney, without formal education in law. This is true of any skilled labor, regardless of the amount of effort you put into it. If you are unable to secure resources, you are unable to educate yourself, very much have someone else educate you.
Poor people remain poor because of our broken predatory economic system. There will always be a much larger demand for janitors than there will be for CEOs of Microsoft. Continually, people that do less and less actual work themselves, and rather use the capital of others, make more than educators, construction workers, farmers, the poor malnurished people that made your clothes in another country, because it was cheaper to hire labor there.
For as long as there are a few rich people controlling the majority of wealth, there will be countless poor all over the country, and the world.
You can not just will yourself out of poverty.
I don't blame you, per se, but it does seem that people view this as a revolution in the "right direction" for education. Really, though, this University seems to cater to a small group of people, that are not only intelligent, but already capable of having earned a meaningful degree at an educational institution. This group is made even smaller, by the need to repay loans after graduation from an acredited University.
So the lack of tuition is somewhat useless, as far as the large majority of even intelligent people is concerned.
You, of course, haven't stated that you intended your University to be non-exclusive, so I'm not attempting to say you're misleading. In fact, you made your elitest mentality clear several times, in the follow ups of the original Slashdot article.
My question, though, is do you feel that this sort of exclusiveness is a model that you would think others should follow, in their attempts of creating a tuition-free educational institution?
Shouldn't the point of a free education be to allow those that might not otherwise be able to attend an acredited institution, as well as those capable, to do so?
Which is more important, allowing a free education to those that chose another field, only to find that CS can now make them more money, or to liberate the masses from the shackles of predatory economics?
Technically speaking, a Renaissance man is an individual with a diverse intellectual interests. ...
Such as Leonardo da Vinci, who was interested in painting, engineering, philosophy,
It doesn't mean the individual must know everything, but rather they have a truly meaningful interest and understanding of many fields.
Of course what one considers merit is relative.
Obviously you are speaking in a strictly moral or physical achievement sense; Bill Gates has not physically himself earned his income, nor has he come by it through playing fair.
But of course his actions have earned him his money, regardless of the more moral merit that you're looking for.
It's a matter of predatory economics. You can be a large fat herd animal, or a lithe hunter. While the herd animal spends its days grazing and getting fatter, the hunter stalks the weakest of the prey, and profits from the large amount of calories the herd animal has "earned."
Certainly the hunter has "earned" his calories, even though he doesn't spend his days grazing.
And of course the species that thrives the most is the one that can successfuly survive and reproduce the most effectively.
Of course predatory economics isn't just or fair, and doesn't fit well into a belief system of equality. For certainly if there is a top of the food chain of business, there has to be a lot of people being fed upon.
Though I believe the BSD-like licenses are perfectly fine, and that everyone should just use what they like, I have to say you're not exactly taking the moral high ground here.
> If you aren't a redneck, you don't critisize
> other people for what license they like.
This is rude, and really no better than tossing water on a grease fire. You're not going to change anyone's mind by saying "You're a redneck if you disagree with me!"
Had you left that last sentence off, and spelled proprietary correctly, you'd have a better chance of appealing to people. Still, the topic is a dead horse, so perhaps it's best to just stop beating it.
Use what you like, and let others hate what they hate. They're not rednecks; they simply have different idealogies.
"Some open-source licenses may go a little too far," he said. "It's one thing to facilitate open access, but another to demand it. That's what you are trying to get away from."
In the end, revolutionaries could do more to marginalize the operating system through zealous adherence to a misguided interpretation of the
open-source movement.
It doesn't really seem to matter what Caldera is trying to move away from. They don't really represent the "open source movement", but rather their own corporate interests.
If they have a desire to create closed source proprietary software, then they should be basing it on BSD or public domain software, and not GPL'd software. No one forced them to use these more restrictive licenses.
And the article's bit on a misguided interpretation of the open source movement is rather comical. Given that neither the CEO of Caldera, nor the author of the article are really in a position to claim what open source movement is about. A large faction of the movement isn't writing software so a corporation can come by and take it and profit off it, without any concerns as to the reasons they released the software in the first place.
If they don't agree with the philosophy of the GPL, then there is other software under less restrictive licenses. However, For them to say the followers of the GPL are misunderstanding the open source movement, is crazy.
It would appear, given their plug for StarOffice, that Caldera, having benefited from the fruits of the labor of countless people, are now ready to abandon open source software and paint it as a movement of raving lunatics attempting to stifle the creativity of companies.