Re-read the criticism, robo, he was mainly ranting at YOUR post, the US was a secondary target.
You then blame citizens for not voting?! What a laugh. There are plenty of good reason NOT TO VOTE. There is a reason politicians want you to vote is well: it reduces uncertainty. One of the biggest factors of any elections is voter turnout. Polls can't predict it well.
There are other good reasons not to vote - like not particpating in a charade - but that is just one.
In case I haven't burnt enough kharma yet, get a clue rob. Please.
Dorothy is sitting in front of her PC, staring at the screen when her friend Kordell drops by to visit.
K: Hello, Dorothy.
D: Hi, Kordell.
K: Say, you look pretty bummed. Hacking some more nasty perl?
D: No... I've just been reading Slashdot.
K: Slashdot? That Internet site where you geeks and techheads hang out to talk about computer stuff?
D: We talk about more than that, but yeah, that's the place: www.slashdot.org.
K: Hey, I heard someone at the computer lab today talking about a huge brouhaha over there. What happened?
D: You remember Jon Katz's Hellmouth series last year?
K: About the Littleton shootings?
D: It wasn't about the shootings themselves, but about what happened around the country afterward. He spoke of how fears of "trenchcoat mafias" ignited irrational fears. That geeks and goths and other "misfits" became the subject of much unwanted attention just because they weren't popular or athletic, and about the difficulties of being a teen who just doesn't fit it. Jon Katz wrote some Slashdot articles about what was happening, and he got a ton of e-mail from people all over the country experiencing similar persecution.
K: Sure, I remember -- you made me read those articles . . . but that was last year.
D: Right, well, the Slashdot guys took Katz's articles and many of the Hellmouth posts and compiled them all into a new book called Voices from the Hellmouth. They announced it Thursday -- the anniversary of Littleton.
K: So what's the problem?
D: Well, it's about the posts they published... they published them anonymously and without the permission of the posters.
K: Anonymously?
D: They stripped the posters' names off the posts when they compiled them -- but what I'm upset about is that the posts were published without permission.
K: You mean that they didn't ask author's permission to republish their posts?
D: That's right.
Kordell makes some extremely rude noises.
K: So what? Slashdot's a public forum. Anything anyone says there is in the public domain. Slashdot can take the posts, publish all the books they want to, and nobody can say anything.
D: Not exactly. Just making statements in public doesn't make them public domain. Remember that Pumpkins concert last year? They performed in public, but that doesn't make the performance public domain. If we'd recorded it and sold the MP3 on the 'net, their lawyers would have been all over us.
K: But people used to record Grateful Dead concerts...
D: Because the Dead gave them permission to. They voluntarily gave up some of their copyrights to encourage people to spread their music.
K: And they probably gave up lots of record sales in the process. I bet their label loved that... So people are upset because Slashdot is going to get rich off their posts? I guess I can understand that.
D: Slashdot is going to donate all the proceeds to charity. No one is going to get rich.
K: Then what are the whiners complaining about? Their work is going to support charity; they should be glad.
D: What happens to the money isn't the issue. It's irrelevant.
K: How is it irrelevant? No one's getting rich off their work... so why should they care?
D: Look, Kordell, what if I took that old beater of yours, drove it down to the Salvation Army, and donated it to them.
Kordell laughs.
K: You wouldn't get much for it!
D: So it would be OK with you, then? The money would be going to charity, so you wouldn't mind that I didn't *ask* first?
K: OK, I see your point. I'd be pissed. My old car isn't the same as a bunch of Slashdot posts, though; it's an entirely different issue. I mean, doesn't the subject matter count for anything?
D: You mean of Hellmouth?
K: Exactly! I read most of those articles. There were some deeply profound and compelling stories there... life-altering and life-defining experiences. The kind of stories that should be shared and retold.
D: Actually, I agree with you... they *are* stories that should be shared and retold.
K: Then what's the problem?
D: I also think Jon Katz's last book is a story that should be retold too. But if I scanned it into my PC and redistributed the scans on the Internet, how long do you think it would be before I heard from Katz's lawyers? Or his publisher's lawyers?
K: But Katz owns the copyright to his books.
D: And the Slashdot posters don't own copyright to their comments?
K: No. Not if you post to a public forum like Slashdot. That puts the comments into the public domain.
D: That's funny, because Slashdot doesn't seem to agree with you.
K: Now you've really lost me. Isn't it Slashdot that's taking all the heat for republishing without permission?
D: Yes, but... well, have you ever read the fine print on the bottom of a Slashdot page?
K: You know I don't read Slashdot, and you know *nobody* reads the fine print.
D: Well, some people do. Here, let me show you what I mean...
Dorothy brings up www.slashdot.org in her browser and scrolls to the very bottom of the page. She points to a line of text.
D: Can you read that?
K: "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest Copyright 1997-2000 Andover.Net."
D: So now tell me... what is Slashdot's position on ownership of posted comments?
K: Well, according to this, the poster owns their comments.
D: Then, O Enlightened One, how can Slashdot claim that they are justified in republishing posted comments without the permission of the owner?
K: Maybe their concept of ownership doesn't extend to copyright?
Dorothy snorts in exasperated contempt.
D: Well if "ownership" doesn't mean copyright, then what could it possibly mean? I mean, what's left?
K: Maybe it's just a liability disclaimer. You know, so that if someone posts something incredibly insulting to the President or the Pope, Slashdot can just point to the disclaimer and say "We don't own that comment -- the poster does."
D: That would be hugely disingenuous on their part. And, if it ever got out that that's what they meant by ownership, it would alienate most of their readers.
K: It's no worse than what many web sites do.
D: But Slashdot isn't just any web site; they portray themselves as being different -- "News for Nerds" and all that.
K: I'm not sure I follow you.
D: It's like this: Slashdot often champions the cause of the Little Guy, especially against the Government or Big Corporation. It's part of their identity. When a large corporation's lawyers try to take away the web site of some little nonprofit or Mom-and-Pop, Slashdot publicizes the conflict.
K: You mean like the Etoy fiasco last year?
D: Exactly. When etoys.com sued etoy.org and tried to take their domain name, Slashdot published several articles. Likewise, when Colgate/Palmolive went after ajax.org, and Archie Comics went after veronica.org. There were others too...
K: And Slashdot always takes the side of the little guy? They use their editorial voice to assert this position?
D: What "editorial voice"? This is *Slashdot* we're talking about. But yeah, their editors say things like "Nice to see the little guys win one..." or "Perhaps we can help Veronica..." And one time Rob Malda said "I'm willing to buy one of those Rios just to make a statement against the RIAA goobers...."
K: So it's not just domain-name disputes where they side with the little guy?
D: Oh no, there are much bigger battles being fought like mp3/Napster/Gnutella vs. the RIAA, the DeCSS vs. the MPAA, Linux vs. Microsoft, and Echelon vs... well, most *everybody*.
K: OK, I see the pattern, but what does all that have to do ownership of posted comments?
D: It sets up certain expectations. People expect them to behave differently than all those big organizations they constantly criticize. People expect them to behave, well, *better*.
K: That's stretching things a bit, don't you think?
D: I have one more example. You remember GeoCities?
K: Yeah, they were bought out by Yahoo last year.
D: Yup, and when Yahoo bought them out, Yahoo's lawyers tried to change the terms of service under which people could post their pages. Yahoo tried to claim that they *owned* anything posted to their site, regardless of who created the content.
K: Stop right there. A blind man could see where you're going with this.
D: Right. But there's a peculiar irony here... Yahoo eventually capitulated and changed their terms of service. When Slashdot posted a story announcing the change, they quoted the guy who submitted the story to summarize Yahoo's new position. He said: "So while they don't own your web page, they can still do whatever they want to with it."
K: Whoa. And Slashdot's position is "You own your comment, but we can still do whatever we want to with it."
D: Seems to be. Eerie, huh?
K: Yeah, but so what? I still don't see how that's going to hurt Slashdot. So they've given people ownership of their postings, then disregarded that onership? I still doubt you could build much of a legal case out of that.
D: Look, you're just not getting it. This is not a legal issue; it's a moral issue. It's not a question of whether it was *legal* for Slashdot to repost all those comments, it's a question of whether it was right for them to do so.
K: Oh come on, you can't convince me that all those geeks care about a question of morals.
D: That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you. They do care, many of them. Go read the posts. They care about whether it's right for some big corporation to take away baby Veronica's web site. They care about whether it's right for the MPAA to quash the DeCSS software. They care about whether it's right for the NSA to eavesdrop on their e-mail.
K: And you think they'll care about whether it's right for Slashdot to do what they've done with user comments?
D: I do. Furthermore, I think many Slashdot posters are going to feel at least somewhat betrayed. Slashdot has always tried to take the high ground... and yet now they're behaving like another Yahoo.
K: How many of *your* posts did they appropriate?
D: Of mine? Well... none.
K: *None*? Then why all your bitching and moaning?
D: Because I've made posts on lots of other topics at Slashdot. I made those posts under the promise of Slashdot's copyright notice - that my posts belonged to me. But maybe some day Slashdot will decide that one of those other topics is at the center of another moral imperative that requires them to publish my posts in another book... without my permission.
K: Would it really harm you if they did?
D: Not in the sense that it would cost me money, but there's more at stake here than money. What about my reputation? What if I don't approve of their moral imperative? My right to decide how my words are used, what reputation I earn, and what causes I'm associated with is *very* important to me.
K: OK, OK... So you and a few others have created an uproar. Has Slashdot responded?
D: Jon Katz and Rob Malda posted a long and rather eloquent defense of the book. They made great points about the significance of the Hellmouth stories, about what Jon Katz called their "moral imperative". But the essence of their argument was that their cause was so important that it didn't matter whether they acquired the permission of the posters. They barely addressed the issue of posting without permission, and where they did, the gist of their statement was that seeking permission was too inconvenient, so they wouldn't do it.
K: And that's what you're pissed off about?
D: What I'm pissed about is the implication that by raising questions about ownerships and permissions, I and people like me are trying to prevent the publication of the book. In doing so, Jon Katz compared us to the "journalists, administrators, and parents" who have tried to silence the Hellmouth posters.
K: But aren't you trying to do just that? If the Slashdot people have to stop publication while they try to track down all the Hellmount posters, it *would* effectively shut down the book. Perhaps indefinitely.
D: I don't want to stop the book, or even to delay it. Let them publish. But, at the same time, they should acknowledge that they violated their own copyright policy, and that they made a mistake in doing so. Not in the sense that it was wrong to publish the Hellmouth articles, but that it was wrong to ignore their copyright promises to their users. And more importantly, they should define for future reference *exactly* what it means that a person "owns" their comments. They should write down that policy in detail, and they should stick by their policy.
Of course, I'll have to figure a way to bring that 30 mile hunk of rock to me where I can work it with my mine-0-bots. If it is aimed just right, it could land safely on a worthless hunk of land.
A simple parachute attached to the back, combined with an inflatable landing pad cushion should do the work. I love it when a plan comes together.
... and I was curious as to whether or not it would appear on slash. Evidently, it has now been posted:)
Seems appropriate, Bill Gates stubs his toe and slash posts the story. VA Linux falls in value by a factor of 10 and it is ignored. Andover purchas price drops by 1/3... also ignored.
Now their posting an anti-redhat story (http://www.redhatisnotlinux.org/), guess they really are picking sides.
Thank you for the link, however, please not that libertarianism and objectivism are distinct idealogies. Libertarianism is, perhaps, best viewed as a collection of ideologies - no single version AFAIK. Objectivism has been more contained.
In a sense, Objectivism is closed-source version and Libertarianism the open-source version.
If you want to understand the philosophical underpinnings of a free society (of which, this is not), then you should check her out - uhm her philosophy.
I'm not aware of any weaknesses in the philosophy - I like the time and/or intelligence to find them and improve on her work. The best summary of Objectivism is in Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand".
An objectivist as would a libertarian - one that understands the term - would support Microsoft's right to behave so long as they don't iniate the use of force (which they haven't from what I've heard). Same with open source - full support and good luck.
My opinion is that many people use the word libertarian without understanding it. Just as they use the word monopoly - but that's different story. BTW - you have a monopoly on your own labor (think about it) - try not to abuse it - LOL - good thing the goverment regulates it (sarcasm).
Why do you trust the government because "the're not out to make a profit?"
1) DO YOU KNOW WHAT TAXES ARE? 2) When they issue money/debt, why do they need to make a profit?
I like dealing with companies that are out to make a profit. I know what they want. What the goverment wants isn't money (true). They want power. They got it. You gave it to them.
You'd notice that "New York" is not mentioned. The pollutants mentioned are also not likely to be found in great quantities in the Big Apple (unless you're eating old lead paint).
The article had more to do with malnutrition and rare eco-disasters (like Chernobyl) than with how the vast bulk (90%+) of people live in industrial society.
Little data is given. Most of the examples are old. Where are the controlled studies? And why does every poster only seem to read the headline and then run with it? A more apt title "Some pollutants at high concentrations may impair intelligence."
Remember: "The dose makes the poison."
This is not science, pure environmental FUD easily food to kids raised in public schools on junk science.
Slashdot Mirror
Re-read the criticism, robo, he was mainly ranting at YOUR post, the US was a secondary target.
You then blame citizens for not voting?! What a laugh. There are plenty of good reason NOT TO VOTE. There is a reason politicians want you to vote is well: it reduces uncertainty. One of the biggest factors of any elections is voter turnout. Polls can't predict it well.
There are other good reasons not to vote - like not particpating in a charade - but that is just one.
In case I haven't burnt enough kharma yet, get a clue rob. Please.
*sniff* *sniff*
1) Have all posts start at the same level
2) Stop calling people Cowards
3) End anonymous moderation
to do somebody else's homework.
Jim Thompson is also known by the handle "kzinti" on Slashdot.
- --------------------------------
Note: The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily those of 32BitsOnline.
-----------------------------------------------
A dialog in two parts.
Dorothy is sitting in front of her PC, staring at the screen when her friend Kordell drops by to visit.
K: Hello, Dorothy.
D: Hi, Kordell.
K: Say, you look pretty bummed. Hacking some more nasty perl?
D: No... I've just been reading Slashdot.
K: Slashdot? That Internet site where you geeks and techheads hang out to talk about computer stuff?
D: We talk about more than that, but yeah, that's the place: www.slashdot.org.
K: Hey, I heard someone at the computer lab today talking about a huge brouhaha over there. What happened?
D: You remember Jon Katz's Hellmouth series last year?
K: About the Littleton shootings?
D: It wasn't about the shootings themselves, but about what happened around the country afterward. He spoke of how fears of "trenchcoat mafias" ignited irrational fears. That geeks and goths and other "misfits" became the subject of much unwanted attention just because they weren't popular or athletic, and about the difficulties of being a teen who just doesn't fit it. Jon Katz wrote some Slashdot articles about what was happening, and he got a ton of e-mail from people all over the country experiencing similar persecution.
K: Sure, I remember -- you made me read those articles . . . but that was last year.
D: Right, well, the Slashdot guys took Katz's articles and many of the Hellmouth posts and compiled them all into a new book called Voices from the Hellmouth. They announced it Thursday -- the anniversary of Littleton.
K: So what's the problem?
D: Well, it's about the posts they published... they published them anonymously and without the permission of the posters.
K: Anonymously?
D: They stripped the posters' names off the posts when they compiled them -- but what I'm upset about is that the posts were published without permission.
K: You mean that they didn't ask author's permission to republish their posts?
D: That's right.
Kordell makes some extremely rude noises.
K: So what? Slashdot's a public forum. Anything anyone says there is in the public domain. Slashdot can take the posts, publish all the books they want to, and nobody can say anything.
D: Not exactly. Just making statements in public doesn't make them public domain. Remember that Pumpkins concert last year? They performed in public, but that doesn't make the performance public domain. If we'd recorded it and sold the MP3 on the 'net, their lawyers would have been all over us.
K: But people used to record Grateful Dead concerts...
D: Because the Dead gave them permission to. They voluntarily gave up some of their copyrights to encourage people to spread their music.
K: And they probably gave up lots of record sales in the process. I bet their label loved that... So people are upset because Slashdot is going to get rich off their posts? I guess I can understand that.
D: Slashdot is going to donate all the proceeds to charity. No one is going to get rich.
K: Then what are the whiners complaining about? Their work is going to support charity; they should be glad.
D: What happens to the money isn't the issue. It's irrelevant.
K: How is it irrelevant? No one's getting rich off their work... so why should they care?
D: Look, Kordell, what if I took that old beater of yours, drove it down to the Salvation Army, and donated it to them.
Kordell laughs.
K: You wouldn't get much for it!
D: So it would be OK with you, then? The money would be going to charity, so you wouldn't mind that I didn't *ask* first?
K: OK, I see your point. I'd be pissed. My old car isn't the same as a bunch of Slashdot posts, though; it's an entirely different issue. I mean, doesn't the subject matter count for anything?
D: You mean of Hellmouth?
K: Exactly! I read most of those articles. There were some deeply profound and compelling stories there... life-altering and life-defining experiences. The kind of stories that should be shared and retold.
D: Actually, I agree with you... they *are* stories that should be shared and retold.
K: Then what's the problem?
D: I also think Jon Katz's last book is a story that should be retold too. But if I scanned it into my PC and redistributed the scans on the Internet, how long do you think it would be before I heard from Katz's lawyers? Or his publisher's lawyers?
K: But Katz owns the copyright to his books.
D: And the Slashdot posters don't own copyright to their comments?
K: No. Not if you post to a public forum like Slashdot. That puts the comments into the public domain.
D: That's funny, because Slashdot doesn't seem to agree with you.
K: Now you've really lost me. Isn't it Slashdot that's taking all the heat for republishing without permission?
D: Yes, but... well, have you ever read the fine print on the bottom of a Slashdot page?
K: You know I don't read Slashdot, and you know *nobody* reads the fine print.
D: Well, some people do. Here, let me show you what I mean...
Dorothy brings up www.slashdot.org in her browser and scrolls to the very bottom of the page. She points to a line of text.
D: Can you read that?
K: "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest Copyright 1997-2000 Andover.Net."
D: So now tell me... what is Slashdot's position on ownership of posted comments?
K: Well, according to this, the poster owns their comments.
D: Then, O Enlightened One, how can Slashdot claim that they are justified in republishing posted comments without the permission of the owner?
K: Maybe their concept of ownership doesn't extend to copyright?
Dorothy snorts in exasperated contempt.
D: Well if "ownership" doesn't mean copyright, then what could it possibly mean? I mean, what's left?
K: Maybe it's just a liability disclaimer. You know, so that if someone posts something incredibly insulting to the President or the Pope, Slashdot can just point to the disclaimer and say "We don't own that comment -- the poster does."
D: That would be hugely disingenuous on their part. And, if it ever got out that that's what they meant by ownership, it would alienate most of their readers.
K: It's no worse than what many web sites do.
D: But Slashdot isn't just any web site; they portray themselves as being different -- "News for Nerds" and all that.
K: I'm not sure I follow you.
D: It's like this: Slashdot often champions the cause of the Little Guy, especially against the Government or Big Corporation. It's part of their identity. When a large corporation's lawyers try to take away the web site of some little nonprofit or Mom-and-Pop, Slashdot publicizes the conflict.
K: You mean like the Etoy fiasco last year?
D: Exactly. When etoys.com sued etoy.org and tried to take their domain name, Slashdot published several articles. Likewise, when Colgate/Palmolive went after ajax.org, and Archie Comics went after veronica.org. There were others too...
K: And Slashdot always takes the side of the little guy? They use their editorial voice to assert this position?
D: What "editorial voice"? This is *Slashdot* we're talking about. But yeah, their editors say things like "Nice to see the little guys win one..." or "Perhaps we can help Veronica..." And one time Rob Malda said "I'm willing to buy one of those Rios just to make a statement against the RIAA goobers...."
K: So it's not just domain-name disputes where they side with the little guy?
D: Oh no, there are much bigger battles being fought like mp3/Napster/Gnutella vs. the RIAA, the DeCSS vs. the MPAA, Linux vs. Microsoft, and Echelon vs... well, most *everybody*.
K: OK, I see the pattern, but what does all that have to do ownership of posted comments?
D: It sets up certain expectations. People expect them to behave differently than all those big organizations they constantly criticize. People expect them to behave, well, *better*.
K: That's stretching things a bit, don't you think?
D: I have one more example. You remember GeoCities?
K: Yeah, they were bought out by Yahoo last year.
D: Yup, and when Yahoo bought them out, Yahoo's lawyers tried to change the terms of service under which people could post their pages. Yahoo tried to claim that they *owned* anything posted to their site, regardless of who created the content.
K: Stop right there. A blind man could see where you're going with this.
D: Right. But there's a peculiar irony here... Yahoo eventually capitulated and changed their terms of service. When Slashdot posted a story announcing the change, they quoted the guy who submitted the story to summarize Yahoo's new position. He said: "So while they don't own your web page, they can still do whatever they want to with it."
K: Whoa. And Slashdot's position is "You own your comment, but we can still do whatever we want to with it."
D: Seems to be. Eerie, huh?
K: Yeah, but so what? I still don't see how that's going to hurt Slashdot. So they've given people ownership of their postings, then disregarded that onership? I still doubt you could build much of a legal case out of that.
D: Look, you're just not getting it. This is not a legal issue; it's a moral issue. It's not a question of whether it was *legal* for Slashdot to repost all those comments, it's a question of whether it was right for them to do so.
K: Oh come on, you can't convince me that all those geeks care about a question of morals.
D: That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you. They do care, many of them. Go read the posts. They care about whether it's right for some big corporation to take away baby Veronica's web site. They care about whether it's right for the MPAA to quash the DeCSS software. They care about whether it's right for the NSA to eavesdrop on their e-mail.
K: And you think they'll care about whether it's right for Slashdot to do what they've done with user comments?
D: I do. Furthermore, I think many Slashdot posters are going to feel at least somewhat betrayed. Slashdot has always tried to take the high ground... and yet now they're behaving like another Yahoo.
K: How many of *your* posts did they appropriate?
D: Of mine? Well... none.
K: *None*? Then why all your bitching and moaning?
D: Because I've made posts on lots of other topics at Slashdot. I made those posts under the promise of Slashdot's copyright notice - that my posts belonged to me. But maybe some day Slashdot will decide that one of those other topics is at the center of another moral imperative that requires them to publish my posts in another book... without my permission.
K: Would it really harm you if they did?
D: Not in the sense that it would cost me money, but there's more at stake here than money. What about my reputation? What if I don't approve of their moral imperative? My right to decide how my words are used, what reputation I earn, and what causes I'm associated with is *very* important to me.
K: OK, OK... So you and a few others have created an uproar. Has Slashdot responded?
D: Jon Katz and Rob Malda posted a long and rather eloquent defense of the book. They made great points about the significance of the Hellmouth stories, about what Jon Katz called their "moral imperative". But the essence of their argument was that their cause was so important that it didn't matter whether they acquired the permission of the posters. They barely addressed the issue of posting without permission, and where they did, the gist of their statement was that seeking permission was too inconvenient, so they wouldn't do it.
K: And that's what you're pissed off about?
D: What I'm pissed about is the implication that by raising questions about ownerships and permissions, I and people like me are trying to prevent the publication of the book. In doing so, Jon Katz compared us to the "journalists, administrators, and parents" who have tried to silence the Hellmouth posters.
K: But aren't you trying to do just that? If the Slashdot people have to stop publication while they try to track down all the Hellmount posters, it *would* effectively shut down the book. Perhaps indefinitely.
D: I don't want to stop the book, or even to delay it. Let them publish. But, at the same time, they should acknowledge that they violated their own copyright policy, and that they made a mistake in doing so. Not in the sense that it was wrong to publish the Hellmouth articles, but that it was wrong to ignore their copyright promises to their users. And more importantly, they should define for future reference *exactly* what it means that a person "owns" their comments. They should write down that policy in detail, and they should stick by their policy.
K: And you feel strongly about that?
D: This is Stuff That Matters.
Of course, I'll have to figure a way to bring that 30 mile hunk of rock to me where I can work it with my mine-0-bots. If it is aimed just right, it could land safely on a worthless hunk of land.
A simple parachute attached to the back, combined with an inflatable landing pad cushion should do the work. I love it when a plan comes together.
As one who has abused moderation, you should no the problem is not anonymity. More likely, it is kharma whores that post at a +2 advantage.
OK, OK so it's the admins that created the flawed system, but you, Sig, should know better.
"I'm always trying to help out NASA." - Timothy
This reminds me of that helpful, silly robot from "Space Camp" (THE best space film, EVER) that launches the shuttle. Whoops.
Maybe someday you'll get your chance.
1) Where did all the "libertarians" go?
2) Why did the Andover purchase price drop by 1/3?
3) In the battle of David vs Goliath - I root for David
Unfortunately, ever since installing JunkBuster, I've been unable to see a lot of banner ads. Must be a bug in the software.
... and I was curious as to whether or not it would appear on slash. Evidently, it has now been posted :)
Seems appropriate, Bill Gates stubs his toe and slash posts the story. VA Linux falls in value by a factor of 10 and it is ignored. Andover purchas price drops by 1/3... also ignored.
Now their posting an anti-redhat story (http://www.redhatisnotlinux.org/), guess they really are picking sides.
?
Thank you for the link, however, please not that libertarianism and objectivism are distinct idealogies. Libertarianism is, perhaps, best viewed as a collection of ideologies - no single version AFAIK. Objectivism has been more contained.
In a sense, Objectivism is closed-source version and Libertarianism the open-source version.
Thanks for the link. A good read indeed.
... maybe you'll be next.
The US is, technically, a republic. Democracy is mob rule. Remember mob rule, geeks? Libertarianism and anarchy are not the same thing.
If you want to understand the philosophical underpinnings of a free society (of which, this is not), then you should check her out - uhm her philosophy.
I'm not aware of any weaknesses in the philosophy - I like the time and/or intelligence to find them and improve on her work. The best summary of Objectivism is in Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand".
An objectivist as would a libertarian - one that understands the term - would support Microsoft's right to behave so long as they don't iniate the use of force (which they haven't from what I've heard). Same with open source - full support and good luck.
My opinion is that many people use the word libertarian without understanding it. Just as they use the word monopoly - but that's different story. BTW - you have a monopoly on your own labor (think about it) - try not to abuse it - LOL - good thing the goverment regulates it (sarcasm).
Now I have to translate all my source code into French.
Why do you trust the government because "the're not out to make a profit?"
1) DO YOU KNOW WHAT TAXES ARE?
2) When they issue money/debt, why do they need to make a profit?
I like dealing with companies that are out to make a profit. I know what they want. What the goverment wants isn't money (true). They want power. They got it. You gave it to them.
-thanks
They spammed me $10 and $20 credits I took advantage of them getting like $10.73 and $21.50 worth of stuff so they lose big time - hehehe.
You'd notice that "New York" is not mentioned. The pollutants mentioned are also not likely to be found in great quantities in the Big Apple (unless you're eating old lead paint).
The article had more to do with malnutrition and rare eco-disasters (like Chernobyl) than with how the vast bulk (90%+) of people live in industrial society.
Little data is given. Most of the examples are old. Where are the controlled studies? And why does every poster only seem to read the headline and then run with it? A more apt title "Some pollutants at high concentrations may impair intelligence."
/., but nice try.
Remember: "The dose makes the poison."
This is not science, pure environmental FUD easily food to kids raised in public schools on junk science.
Stick to Linux