Upholding freedoms is generally not the purpose of a three letter agency. They would generally fit more under a security heading, and that security often comes at the expense of liberty.
That's working under the assumption that the FBI is more competent than a bunch of script kiddies, and not taking into consideration that while the majority of the people involved in a particular operation are merely script kiddies, there are often more competent people involved.
Let's just say those are completely stupid ideas. Would the damage they do be worse than the repairs drastic cuts to military spending and the end of many drug prohibitions, not to mention the benefits to business that returning civil liberties will bring? The lion's share of complaints about Ron Paul's policies are in a single sector, the banking industry, which seems to pretty clearly not have it's shit together as is.
If you still think that his policy for the financial industry makes him worse overall, then vote for him and a Congress that won't give him that one point.
It's probably worth considering that you have to pay a lot of whores to get the job done. US Congress consists of 535 elected officials, and the 435 members of the House have to be elected every 2 years. I'm not going to say it's still not relatively cheap, but the costs may be a great deal higher than it looks at a glance.
A more accurate description may be 'user posted.' Some is from scratch, some is using derivative works in a clearly legal or authorized way, some is in a gray area, and some is clearly illegal. Takedown requests are pretty common for all but the first, and the recent UMG/Megaupload debacle has reminded us that even that can be subject to takedown by particularly aggressive groups.
But will it destroy the economy faster than what everyone else is doing? The most common criticism of Paul's policies tends to be that it's naive, but naive is usually better than malicious.
You can think these things are just wants and live at home as an adult all you want. People everywhere are expected and looked down upon as irresponsible if they do not have these things and it is our job in life to earn them and keep them.
I didn't say those weren't responsibilities. I claimed there's no such thing as a right to a car. Those are things you can get, but aren't inherently entitled to have them. Also, I don't think that people who don't have children, cars, or student loans are irresponsible. Opting to not have these things could very well be the responsible thing to do.
IN terms of GPL and competitors that is fine and dandy if you own an ISP or something, but for a real world task of making industrialized equipment as an example, I can't give that away. If I spent 2,000,000 developing the secret algorithms for something competitors do not have I then charge more for customers willing to use my product. A competitor will simply steal my code and then undersell me as he never had to fund the development. Now my product is no different than anyone elses but costs more.
That would seem to take BSDL off the table for you as well. Your problem with the BSDL appears to be that you can't make use of the work other people have done and then turn around and stop other people from using your work in a similar manner. It seems you want others to use the BSDL over the GPL, not that you think BSDL is better for you to use. I don't really feel sorry for you in that situation.
It is a right for people to want to make money and why is that bad?
I'll give you that, but it is just as much a right to want to sleep with supermodels. However, don't confuse the right to want to with the right to have.
Student loans, kids, retirement, and a car are considered basic rights and responsibilities.
Those are basic responsibilities, but you don't have a basic right to them.
So your rights if you own the code are important too. Thats life
Okay, about the code itself. If you are the original developer and sole copyright holder, you aren't restricted by the license. The GPL could possibly be a greater way of making money because you can sell exceptions, and competitors can't distribute a proprietary version based upon the work you've done. If you licensed that same project under the BSDL, your competitors could make a proprietary version. They could keep using your beneficial changes, but you wouldn't have access to theirs. I don't see how that's beneficial to the original developer. I see how it's beneficial to the competitor that builds a proprietary version upon yours, but I don't see why we should be working to benefit those parties.
Yeah, but they'd probably bring antitrust action against them for upsetting the status quo, despite the status quo being far more deserving of such action.
The original video was not pirated. The news video complaining about it was not pirated. No copyright infringement has occurred. What has happened is that UMG is using an agreement with Google, likely a coercive one, to stop speech it doesn't like. I personally have problems with that,
In response to your other comments about censorship, this is censorship. It's just not censorship by the government.
The deal was almost certainly coercive, although we don't know how coercive it is. They are trying to buy EMI right now, so it's poor timing to be an asshole.
I think we're eventually going to have to come to terms with the fact that we've done stupid things in our lifetime. If you don't hire anyone who has a stupid picture of themselves on facebook, then the employee pool is going to be too small for you.
You can't vote against somebody. If you could, we'd never have republicans or democrats in office because everybody hates those sons of bitches. Our flawed system only allows you to vote FOR someone.
Where did you get the idea of porn from? It seemed quite clear the subject was prostitution, which would be a career path suited for a woman whose only marketable talent was having an attractive body.
No, the difference between a theory and a law is a theory contains an explanation of why, while a law does not. Good scientists generally wouldn't have the arrogance to claim to know something, because our understanding of a subject may change greatly over time.
I think the war in Iraq was more about Bush Jr.'s personal vendetta about trying to kill his father than oil. Also, assuming we don't have FTL travel, they would need to have a lot of oil to justify the 1200+ year trip
Abstraction is probably not the best way of putting it. As another replier put it, biology and psychology being more on the applied side is probably a better description.
The first sentence was to address the common misconception that laws are more scientific or require more evidence than theories.
So, are you claiming that evolutionary biology is a pseudoscience? Really, I'm hard pressed to think of any laws that exist in biology at all, although I won't claim that there are none. However, I'm quite certain that you could have a biology class that is completely absent of those laws if they exist.
The difference between a theory and a law isn't how verifiable a law is, but that theories attempt to explain why and laws do not. There is no explanation of why certain things happen in math and physics, so we have lots of laws in it. However, biology is far more abstract from fundamental truths of the universe, so it tends to have theories, since what is tested has explanations. Psychology is even more abstract, and thus would be even further down that line.
Slashdot Mirror
Upholding freedoms is generally not the purpose of a three letter agency. They would generally fit more under a security heading, and that security often comes at the expense of liberty.
That's working under the assumption that the FBI is more competent than a bunch of script kiddies, and not taking into consideration that while the majority of the people involved in a particular operation are merely script kiddies, there are often more competent people involved.
Let's just say those are completely stupid ideas. Would the damage they do be worse than the repairs drastic cuts to military spending and the end of many drug prohibitions, not to mention the benefits to business that returning civil liberties will bring? The lion's share of complaints about Ron Paul's policies are in a single sector, the banking industry, which seems to pretty clearly not have it's shit together as is. If you still think that his policy for the financial industry makes him worse overall, then vote for him and a Congress that won't give him that one point.
It's probably worth considering that you have to pay a lot of whores to get the job done. US Congress consists of 535 elected officials, and the 435 members of the House have to be elected every 2 years. I'm not going to say it's still not relatively cheap, but the costs may be a great deal higher than it looks at a glance.
A more accurate description may be 'user posted.' Some is from scratch, some is using derivative works in a clearly legal or authorized way, some is in a gray area, and some is clearly illegal. Takedown requests are pretty common for all but the first, and the recent UMG/Megaupload debacle has reminded us that even that can be subject to takedown by particularly aggressive groups.
But will it destroy the economy faster than what everyone else is doing? The most common criticism of Paul's policies tends to be that it's naive, but naive is usually better than malicious.
Don't confuse his personal views with his political stance. He may have conservative values, but he doesn't force those values on others.
I didn't say those weren't responsibilities. I claimed there's no such thing as a right to a car. Those are things you can get, but aren't inherently entitled to have them. Also, I don't think that people who don't have children, cars, or student loans are irresponsible. Opting to not have these things could very well be the responsible thing to do.
That would seem to take BSDL off the table for you as well. Your problem with the BSDL appears to be that you can't make use of the work other people have done and then turn around and stop other people from using your work in a similar manner. It seems you want others to use the BSDL over the GPL, not that you think BSDL is better for you to use. I don't really feel sorry for you in that situation.
I'll give you that, but it is just as much a right to want to sleep with supermodels. However, don't confuse the right to want to with the right to have.
Those are basic responsibilities, but you don't have a basic right to them.
Okay, about the code itself. If you are the original developer and sole copyright holder, you aren't restricted by the license. The GPL could possibly be a greater way of making money because you can sell exceptions, and competitors can't distribute a proprietary version based upon the work you've done. If you licensed that same project under the BSDL, your competitors could make a proprietary version. They could keep using your beneficial changes, but you wouldn't have access to theirs. I don't see how that's beneficial to the original developer. I see how it's beneficial to the competitor that builds a proprietary version upon yours, but I don't see why we should be working to benefit those parties.
Yeah, but they'd probably bring antitrust action against them for upsetting the status quo, despite the status quo being far more deserving of such action.
The original video was not pirated. The news video complaining about it was not pirated. No copyright infringement has occurred. What has happened is that UMG is using an agreement with Google, likely a coercive one, to stop speech it doesn't like. I personally have problems with that,
In response to your other comments about censorship, this is censorship. It's just not censorship by the government.
The deal was almost certainly coercive, although we don't know how coercive it is. They are trying to buy EMI right now, so it's poor timing to be an asshole.
I think I'd prefer Jefferson's method of refreshing the tree of liberty to settling for the lesser evil.
I think we're eventually going to have to come to terms with the fact that we've done stupid things in our lifetime. If you don't hire anyone who has a stupid picture of themselves on facebook, then the employee pool is going to be too small for you.
You can't vote against somebody. If you could, we'd never have republicans or democrats in office because everybody hates those sons of bitches. Our flawed system only allows you to vote FOR someone.
This is a more intense version of what Jobs was already doing. If there's a difference, it's that now they are a faceless corporation.
The thing about NPEs is that you can't countersue them. If Apple were suing them, that could work, but it's not Apple suing.
Where did you get the idea of porn from? It seemed quite clear the subject was prostitution, which would be a career path suited for a woman whose only marketable talent was having an attractive body.
No, the difference between a theory and a law is a theory contains an explanation of why, while a law does not. Good scientists generally wouldn't have the arrogance to claim to know something, because our understanding of a subject may change greatly over time.
Then the insurance company informs them that they didn't get pirate coverage.
I think the war in Iraq was more about Bush Jr.'s personal vendetta about trying to kill his father than oil. Also, assuming we don't have FTL travel, they would need to have a lot of oil to justify the 1200+ year trip
Abstraction is probably not the best way of putting it. As another replier put it, biology and psychology being more on the applied side is probably a better description.
The first sentence was to address the common misconception that laws are more scientific or require more evidence than theories.
So, are you claiming that evolutionary biology is a pseudoscience? Really, I'm hard pressed to think of any laws that exist in biology at all, although I won't claim that there are none. However, I'm quite certain that you could have a biology class that is completely absent of those laws if they exist.
The difference between a theory and a law isn't how verifiable a law is, but that theories attempt to explain why and laws do not. There is no explanation of why certain things happen in math and physics, so we have lots of laws in it. However, biology is far more abstract from fundamental truths of the universe, so it tends to have theories, since what is tested has explanations. Psychology is even more abstract, and thus would be even further down that line.
I'd say it's more of a protoscience than a pseudoscience.