If you release the your software with a simple license that says, "You can copy it if you want", what could you possibly have to sue for or be sued for?
It might not happen in the commercial world, but there is not reason it cannot happen in the "open source software" world.
It is the same thing in my mind as the hardware issue. I buy something and I should be able to do whatever I want. Likewise, you give me something (software), I should be able to do whatever I want.
It seems odd that the so many people here line up on the side of the GPL type license and then also complain about not being able to do what they want when they buy a piece of hardware or a CD.
If Microsoft came in and worked on the software and packaged it and sold it, they would be ripping you off by not giving you the new additions for free?
I say that is bullshit. You with the GPL are forcing them to be ripped off by taking their work for free if they want yours.
You still have your work. They still have theirs. No one is hurt by that situation.
You can't currently stop anyone from doing something bad to your software anyway. Some idiot can still take your software, GPL and release the source to their additions and it can still suck.
The fact of the matter is that if you want your work to stay in the public domain just say so and keep releasing it anytime someone asks.
The GPL is not "FREE" no matter how much RMS repeats that it is.
Let's get rid of them all. Use software as you see fit...if it has the source, then you can modify it and use it and forget about it, if it is only binary, then you can have the binary and do whatever you want with it.
Why are we and they making the damn situation so complex?
Why does RMS have to take a look at everyone's license and make certain it is "Free"?
Let's just get rid of the whole damn license. Just release your software if you want and don't release it if you don't want. This DOES NOT require lawyers.
I think what you are saying you meant as "rational" was really "always makes perfect decisions". I read rational as meaning "capable of thinking".
People are not irrational (typically) although they can make what seem to be irrational actions. These actions are still (typically) rational, just a decision was made to trade the effort of thinking for a simpler response to a situation.
The fundamental problem is probably this:
I would guess from your words that you believe that if someone decides to choose to not think, just repond...that it is alright and that if someone is hurt by those actions, then it was merely irrational and we are all human, right? Perhaps in some instances, the law should intervene and help people be protected from themselves not thinking? Does this sound like you would agree to it?
I disagree firmly with that attitude. I believe that if you decide not to think about a situation and you get screwed, then you have no one to blame but yourself. Now that doesn't mean that I won't help someone out personally; I am more than willing to help someone out with my own efforts once or twice, particularly if they are familty etc. But I do not think that the government should make me protect other people from themselves.
I think this "I am irrational" thing sets me off because I hate to see people not willing to take personal responsibility and would much rather have them say "Dammit, I wasn't thinking, can you give me a hand? or please forgive me".
When you cross that point where you think someone else (government) should protect you (when you are clearly able to protect yourself if you tried), you have started down a very slippery slope.
I don't believe moderation was applied to my posts, i just get a +1 bonus (removed this time).
If you are irrational, then your comments are meaningless...you haven't thought about them.
If everyone is irrational, then how can we possibly decide what laws to enact?
Someone must be rational and capable of deciding things. I say everyone human is rational (with a few exceptions for insanity, alzheimers, etc.) and if we all don't accept this then we don't need society. Because clearly irrational people making laws to govern other irrational people is stupid and dangerous.
Rationality is of course the crux of libertarian beliefs.
Rational behavior is what seperates you from an animal. You may decide not to think about certain things all the time, but because you are rational, you probably only do it for low impact decisions.
If somone cannot act in a rational manner for important things (e.g. Ronald Regan), then they must be cared for by others. It really is not that radical of a belief.
I do not believe the constitution guarantees a right to privacy. Some people will definitely argue that it is a derived right.
When you say marketize, you are somehow redefining it. How would "marketizing speech" be putting a tax (definitely not a free market behavior) on speech.
I see some serious problems with what you are trying to say. Could you restate it better so that I can understand what you are saying?
I do believe that I agree with you that everyone should stick to non-HTML mail, but one HTML capability should be in all mail forms, and that is HTML links. I can't tell you how many relatives that I have that couldn't possibly figure out how to copy and paste something into their browser. Links are a necessity, but lets get rid of javascript and images right now.
"Bodhisattavas never engage in conversations whose resolutions depend on words and logic."
Perhaps you can reconcile Enlightenment and Understanding based on personal realization.
"Koans are the folk stories of Zen Buddhism, metaphorical narratives that particularize essential nature. Each koan is a window that show the whole truth but just from a single vantage. It is limited in perspective.One hundred koans give one hundred vantages. When they are enriched with insightful comments and poems, then you have ten thousand vantages. There is no end to this process of enrichment."
That was quite an odd response to that man's comment.
I think you are mistaken about thinking. This may be because it has been made obvious to you.
Transrational as you are calling it is the part of thinking commonly referred to as "understanding".
Let me tell you how I look at thinking so that you can follow my argument of why I think you are decrying thinking when you should be advocating thinking.
Thinking can be broken down into its fundamental parts:
1) Memorization
- The act of committing to memory a fact or fact pattern with no real comprehension.
2) Analysis
- The act of breaking down a complex set of facts and looking at each fact separately.
3) Synthesis
- The act of bringing together a complex set of facts and trying to see their relationships.
4) Understanding
- The act of clearly viewing all aspects of a set of facts (the indidividual facts, the whole set of facts, the interrelationships, etc.) to be able to truly comprehend the state of things.
I don't know if that made any sense to you, but what you are promoting (trans-rational) is really just understanding. The previous poster was advocating an "understanding" of the issues, but only mentioned "analysis" because that is the first step of many. I would guess he assumed that "synthesis" and "understanding" would follow.
I believe these fundamental steps of thinking are also quite in line with Zen, but many people start to believe in the "spirtual" side of Zen because of linguistics of the teachings and fail to see the metaphors and allegories for what they are.
Personally, I always thought the project was a poorly conceived.
They planned to make a rocket that could go to GEO that was man controlled. The reliability for that kind of craft is exceeding difficult to create and relatively impossible for low cost. If they had gone unmanned, then maybe...but they also wanted to sell rides.
For low cost launch vehicles, I thought Universal Space Wares or Kistler would have fielded a good candidate by now.
Well, what is the cost of the additional taxes that you pay for those services?
Americans will receive that same medical treatment for free (or small co-pay) if they work for a decent employer. It comes out of the employer pocket, so it is essentially a tax, but the reality is that in most instances, Americans do not pay directly for medical bills.
A trifle slow is not the experience that my friends in Canada have had with the postal serivce. They tell me that 3 to 5 weeks is about typical for the mail. Towns near the border of BC actually have huge numbers of PO boxes registered to Canadians.
I don't know much personally about the health care system, but I have heard personal horror stories about both the health care and car insurance systems from residents and people just working in Canada.
It is truely said to here that Microsoft is copyrighting their bug reports. I guess that is a good way to control the perception of their products, but it is truly a disservice to their users.
But I guess users come last in the Microsoft food chain, right?
Slashdot Mirror
If you release the your software with a simple license that says, "You can copy it if you want", what could you possibly have to sue for or be sued for?
It might not happen in the commercial world, but there is not reason it cannot happen in the "open source software" world.
It is the same thing in my mind as the hardware issue. I buy something and I should be able to do whatever I want. Likewise, you give me something (software), I should be able to do whatever I want.
It seems odd that the so many people here line up on the side of the GPL type license and then also complain about not being able to do what they want when they buy a piece of hardware or a CD.
And that license can be as simple as,
"Anyone is free to copy this work for any purpose".
It doesn't have to be a freaking lawyer fest to allow someone to copy your work.
Now let me see if I understand your argument.
If Microsoft came in and worked on the software and packaged it and sold it, they would be ripping you off by not giving you the new additions for free?
I say that is bullshit. You with the GPL are forcing them to be ripped off by taking their work for free if they want yours.
You still have your work. They still have theirs. No one is hurt by that situation.
You can't currently stop anyone from doing something bad to your software anyway. Some idiot can still take your software, GPL and release the source to their additions and it can still suck.
The fact of the matter is that if you want your work to stay in the public domain just say so and keep releasing it anytime someone asks.
The GPL is not "FREE" no matter how much RMS repeats that it is.
Let's get rid of them all. Use software as you see fit...if it has the source, then you can modify it and use it and forget about it, if it is only binary, then you can have the binary and do whatever you want with it.
Why are we and they making the damn situation so complex?
Why does RMS have to take a look at everyone's license and make certain it is "Free"?
Let's just get rid of the whole damn license. Just release your software if you want and don't release it if you don't want. This DOES NOT require lawyers.
Related to your link, I voted against that woman...I wish I had convinced my SO to do so also.
I think what you are saying you meant as "rational" was really "always makes perfect decisions". I read rational as meaning "capable of thinking".
People are not irrational (typically) although they can make what seem to be irrational actions. These actions are still (typically) rational, just a decision was made to trade the effort of thinking for a simpler response to a situation.
The fundamental problem is probably this:
I would guess from your words that you believe that if someone decides to choose to not think, just repond...that it is alright and that if someone is hurt by those actions, then it was merely irrational and we are all human, right? Perhaps in some instances, the law should intervene and help people be protected from themselves not thinking? Does this sound like you would agree to it?
I disagree firmly with that attitude. I believe that if you decide not to think about a situation and you get screwed, then you have no one to blame but yourself. Now that doesn't mean that I won't help someone out personally; I am more than willing to help someone out with my own efforts once or twice, particularly if they are familty etc. But I do not think that the government should make me protect other people from themselves.
I think this "I am irrational" thing sets me off because I hate to see people not willing to take personal responsibility and would much rather have them say "Dammit, I wasn't thinking, can you give me a hand? or please forgive me".
When you cross that point where you think someone else (government) should protect you (when you are clearly able to protect yourself if you tried), you have started down a very slippery slope.
I don't believe moderation was applied to my posts, i just get a +1 bonus (removed this time).
If you are irrational, then your comments are meaningless...you haven't thought about them.
If everyone is irrational, then how can we possibly decide what laws to enact?
Someone must be rational and capable of deciding things. I say everyone human is rational (with a few exceptions for insanity, alzheimers, etc.) and if we all don't accept this then we don't need society. Because clearly irrational people making laws to govern other irrational people is stupid and dangerous.
Your argument undermines your argument.
Rationality is of course the crux of libertarian beliefs.
Rational behavior is what seperates you from an animal. You may decide not to think about certain things all the time, but because you are rational, you probably only do it for low impact decisions.
If somone cannot act in a rational manner for important things (e.g. Ronald Regan), then they must be cared for by others. It really is not that radical of a belief.
I do not believe the constitution guarantees a right to privacy. Some people will definitely argue that it is a derived right.
When you say marketize, you are somehow redefining it. How would "marketizing speech" be putting a tax (definitely not a free market behavior) on speech.
I see some serious problems with what you are trying to say. Could you restate it better so that I can understand what you are saying?
I do believe that I agree with you that everyone should stick to non-HTML mail, but one HTML capability should be in all mail forms, and that is HTML links. I can't tell you how many relatives that I have that couldn't possibly figure out how to copy and paste something into their browser. Links are a necessity, but lets get rid of javascript and images right now.
"Bodhisattavas never engage in conversations whose resolutions depend on words and logic."
Perhaps you can reconcile Enlightenment and Understanding based on personal realization.
"Koans are the folk stories of Zen Buddhism, metaphorical narratives that particularize essential nature. Each koan is a window that show the whole truth but just from a single vantage. It is limited in perspective.One hundred koans give one hundred vantages. When they are enriched with insightful comments and poems, then you have ten thousand vantages. There is no end to this process of enrichment."
That was quite an odd response to that man's comment.
I think you are mistaken about thinking. This may be because it has been made obvious to you.
Transrational as you are calling it is the part of thinking commonly referred to as "understanding".
Let me tell you how I look at thinking so that you can follow my argument of why I think you are decrying thinking when you should be advocating thinking.
Thinking can be broken down into its fundamental parts:
1) Memorization
- The act of committing to memory a fact or fact pattern with no real comprehension.
2) Analysis
- The act of breaking down a complex set of facts and looking at each fact separately.
3) Synthesis
- The act of bringing together a complex set of facts and trying to see their relationships.
4) Understanding
- The act of clearly viewing all aspects of a set of facts (the indidividual facts, the whole set of facts, the interrelationships, etc.) to be able to truly comprehend the state of things.
I don't know if that made any sense to you, but what you are promoting (trans-rational) is really just understanding. The previous poster was advocating an "understanding" of the issues, but only mentioned "analysis" because that is the first step of many. I would guess he assumed that "synthesis" and "understanding" would follow.
I believe these fundamental steps of thinking are also quite in line with Zen, but many people start to believe in the "spirtual" side of Zen because of linguistics of the teachings and fail to see the metaphors and allegories for what they are.
Well when I talked to one of the people from Rotary trying to sell the concept, that is what they stated. Maybe they didn't know themselves?
Here is an article that may interest readers of the above post.
If you have an interest in space, please read it.
Personally, I always thought the project was a poorly conceived.
They planned to make a rocket that could go to GEO that was man controlled. The reliability for that kind of craft is exceeding difficult to create and relatively impossible for low cost. If they had gone unmanned, then maybe...but they also wanted to sell rides.
For low cost launch vehicles, I thought Universal Space Wares or Kistler would have fielded a good candidate by now.
Just outside Vancouver.
Well, what is the cost of the additional taxes that you pay for those services?
Americans will receive that same medical treatment for free (or small co-pay) if they work for a decent employer. It comes out of the employer pocket, so it is essentially a tax, but the reality is that in most instances, Americans do not pay directly for medical bills.
A trifle slow is not the experience that my friends in Canada have had with the postal serivce. They tell me that 3 to 5 weeks is about typical for the mail. Towns near the border of BC actually have huge numbers of PO boxes registered to Canadians.
I don't know much personally about the health care system, but I have heard personal horror stories about both the health care and car insurance systems from residents and people just working in Canada.
Hey, were the absentee ballots in CA ever counted?
Don't forget the pathetic mail service in Canada.
And nationalized health care and insurance.
IMO, not good things.
It is truely said to here that Microsoft is copyrighting their bug reports. I guess that is a good way to control the perception of their products, but it is truly a disservice to their users.
But I guess users come last in the Microsoft food chain, right?
It is disclosed.
They did, slashdot listened to the wrong source ...http://spacedaily.com/news/iridium-00g.html
http://spacedaily.com/news/iridium-00g.html