None of your examples are mandatory. At least in my neck of the woods they are not. Maybe they are in Outer Elbonia, but not where I live.
All I want is an example of a tracking technology that is mandated by the government.
p.s. Another post mentioned GPS systems being mandatory in cell phones. Can anyone shed some data on this? The size of these new phones, I can't imagine how they could cram GPS into one.
Everyone has their own definition of "right", so I usually prefer discussing what is NOT a right. It is clear to me that harming another person is not a right. This is why there are laws against slander, since your right to free speech does not include the right to harm another person through the use of speech. Likewise, my right to bear arms does not include the right to shoot anyone except in self defense while in fear my my life.
Taking a look at corporate profits (which aren't any different from unincorporated profits), I don't see where they harm anyone. The economy is not a zero sum game. One person's profit is not another's loss. Certainly an individual or corporation can engage in illegal, immoral or harmful activities in pursuit of a profit, but the profit itself is not harmful. Quite the opposite. When pursued legally and morally, profits have a beneficial effect on the economy. When my employer makes a profit my job is more secure than when it is not, and the possibility of a pay raise is higher.
Your right to maximize profits is outweighed (for the larger part) by my right to live in a habitable world.
I cannot see how my profits can in anyway affect your world's habitability. There are other things I could do to reduce that, but my making a profit is not one of them.
I wasn't asking for what *might* happen, I was asking for evidence that it has ever happened in the past. Because without past evidence it is anything but clear that tracking technologies inevitably result in government mandates.
Now I'm sure that in some locales it might be the case, but I am not aware of any instances in my particular state. I do not have any mandated tracking technologies in my home, my car, my workplace or my wallet.
I've been racking my brain, but I just can't think of any examples of your progression. At least in the US. Can you help me out by naming at least one tracking technology to demonstrate the possibility of your thesis, and at least two to demonstrate its viability?
x.y.z. Any version change that does not increment x is a minor version change. That may not be how GCC does its versioning, but it's the way that most Free Software projects do it.
My problem isn't that they're ironing out bugs, but that they're putting ABI breaking bug fixes into a *stable* branch. A minor version change should never break backwards compatibility.
I'm not trolling, I'm just venting my frustrations. There is a difference.
The GCC team made the decision to finalize the C++ standard in a *stable* branch. This was a bad decision. They should be creating a standards compliant compiler and library in an unstable branch. Changing the ABI between minor versions is a bad thing.
I'm just hoping that GNU can get their act together by the time 4.0 comes out.
Incidentally, could someone who understands the issues a bit better explain why every upgrade of GCC breaks binary compatibility?
Short answer: the gcc crew is lazy, inconsiderate, or both.
Long answer: they keep changing the way they do C++ name mangling, keep changing the GNU-specific extensions, and keep changing the API for their "standard" C++ library. Once the ISO Standard for C++ was released a few years ago, the g++ ABI should have been finalized and set in stone. Yet g++-3.2 is not going to be backwardly compatible with g++-3.1. Aaargh!
There's a lot of truth in what you say. But it isn't the fault of Linux, it's the fault of the distros. Mandrake (and most of the other "friendly" distros) are living on the bleeding edge. What is needed for greater acceptance on the desktop is a distro that is as conservative as Debian but as "friendly" as Mandrake. But while such a distro will be good for the newbie, it won't be accepted by the community.
Case in point: Corel LinuxOS. It was exactly what the newbie needed, but it was panned out of existance for not being a power-user's distro.
I'm still waiting for the day when the GCC crew gets a clue. Proper prior planning prevents perennial problems. There's absolutely no reason for this incompatibility.
ISO Standard C++ is not changing, so there's no reason to change the ABI. If you have to change the ABI it can only mean that they did it wrong the first time. They *know* that G++ is eventually going to be 100% standard C++ compliant, so they should have finalized the ABI as soon as possible after the standard was released.
Let me get this straight: you don't use Linux, let alone Mandrake, yet you're spouting off on the benefits of Mandrake...
Your stated benefits for Mandrake also apply to several other distros. Did you just not get the time to read the back of their boxes as well? Mandrake might be the best Linux distro for you. But there is no way you can tell until you actually have some experience under your belt.
First, what do I do when someone submits a patch that violates my 'mission'?
Thank the submitter for their interest in the project, politely inform them that the patch will not be accepted, state the reasons why, and don't accept it.
What if I get a patch that I don't understand?
Ask the committer for documentation, code comments, or similar. If you still don't understand it, don't accept it.
What if someone gets angry and decides to fork the project?
Really get a kick out of you BSD guys trying to use the -Current and -Stable shit to try to say you dont have security holes.
Go find out what -CURRENT actually is before you comment further. You are in serious danger of choking on your own foot...
Just because -CURRENT is publicly available does not mean that it is released. An analogy is in order. -RELEASE is equivalent to linux-2.4.18. -STABLE is equivalent to linux-2.5.27. -CURRENT is equivalent to whatever is on Linus' harddrive at this very instant.
Linux didn't start out as an alternative to Windows. It started out as an alternative to Minix and proprietary unices. Linus wanted a unix on his computer. GNU was grossly incomplete. BSD was being mugged by AT&T. Everything else was proprietary. So he started his own.
It wasn't until the age of Slashdot when a significant minority of Linux users (not coders) decided that Linux had to be an alternative or replacement for Windows.
But it wasn't the world press saying "of course Gore must of won, so count those votes a fifth time! And keep counting them until you get the results we want!"
In California we use the classic punch cards. We have never had a problem with them. They are easy to use, poll workers available to demonstrate their use to expatriot Floridans, and we get our poll results counted and finalized by 11PM as well.
The Florida fiasco was one of perception only. People outside of the US need to realize that the US media are professional scare mongerers.
I simply do not want to live in a jurisdiction which requires ID's to vote.
And I don't want to live in a jurisdiction that allows people outside of the jurisdiction to vote in my jurisdiction.
"One person one vote" only works if you ensure that there is one vote per person. An ID of some kind, or a verifiable address, are the easiest ways to verify this.
Slashdot Mirror
None of your examples are mandatory. At least in my neck of the woods they are not. Maybe they are in Outer Elbonia, but not where I live.
All I want is an example of a tracking technology that is mandated by the government.
p.s. Another post mentioned GPS systems being mandatory in cell phones. Can anyone shed some data on this? The size of these new phones, I can't imagine how they could cram GPS into one.
Everyone has their own definition of "right", so I usually prefer discussing what is NOT a right. It is clear to me that harming another person is not a right. This is why there are laws against slander, since your right to free speech does not include the right to harm another person through the use of speech. Likewise, my right to bear arms does not include the right to shoot anyone except in self defense while in fear my my life.
Taking a look at corporate profits (which aren't any different from unincorporated profits), I don't see where they harm anyone. The economy is not a zero sum game. One person's profit is not another's loss. Certainly an individual or corporation can engage in illegal, immoral or harmful activities in pursuit of a profit, but the profit itself is not harmful. Quite the opposite. When pursued legally and morally, profits have a beneficial effect on the economy. When my employer makes a profit my job is more secure than when it is not, and the possibility of a pay raise is higher.
Your right to maximize profits is outweighed (for the larger part) by my right to live in a habitable world.
I cannot see how my profits can in anyway affect your world's habitability. There are other things I could do to reduce that, but my making a profit is not one of them.
Those aren't tracking technologies. I thought that was what we were talking about.
I don't even have to do step 2. Get with the program :-)
I wasn't asking for what *might* happen, I was asking for evidence that it has ever happened in the past. Because without past evidence it is anything but clear that tracking technologies inevitably result in government mandates.
Now I'm sure that in some locales it might be the case, but I am not aware of any instances in my particular state. I do not have any mandated tracking technologies in my home, my car, my workplace or my wallet.
The fight is individual rights versus corporate profits.
Gee, let's compare apples and dead fish why don't we. Are you arguing that it is your individual right that corporations should lose money?
a) The car you rent at a rental agency is not your car. You do not own it.
b) Auto insurance is mandated by law, resulting in near infinite elasticity.
Putting these two together demonstrates a severe disjunction of logic.
Finally, it's mandatory.
I've been racking my brain, but I just can't think of any examples of your progression. At least in the US. Can you help me out by naming at least one tracking technology to demonstrate the possibility of your thesis, and at least two to demonstrate its viability?
You may call your trolling "venting", but so far the problems you have described are due to your own ignorance.
You're absolutely right. I should be ashamed for wanting a stable ABI.
What do you call a "minor version" ?
x.y.z. Any version change that does not increment x is a minor version change. That may not be how GCC does its versioning, but it's the way that most Free Software projects do it.
Post gcc 3.0, they're ironing out the bugs.
My problem isn't that they're ironing out bugs, but that they're putting ABI breaking bug fixes into a *stable* branch. A minor version change should never break backwards compatibility.
I'm not trolling, I'm just venting my frustrations. There is a difference.
The GCC team made the decision to finalize the C++ standard in a *stable* branch. This was a bad decision. They should be creating a standards compliant compiler and library in an unstable branch. Changing the ABI between minor versions is a bad thing.
I'm just hoping that GNU can get their act together by the time 4.0 comes out.
It's called "joke" or "sarcasm".
Hmmmph! I'm a Slashdot poster. I don't have a sense of humor.
Incidentally, could someone who understands the issues a bit better explain why every upgrade of GCC breaks binary compatibility?
Short answer: the gcc crew is lazy, inconsiderate, or both.
Long answer: they keep changing the way they do C++ name mangling, keep changing the GNU-specific extensions, and keep changing the API for their "standard" C++ library. Once the ISO Standard for C++ was released a few years ago, the g++ ABI should have been finalized and set in stone. Yet g++-3.2 is not going to be backwardly compatible with g++-3.1. Aaargh!
There's a lot of truth in what you say. But it isn't the fault of Linux, it's the fault of the distros. Mandrake (and most of the other "friendly" distros) are living on the bleeding edge. What is needed for greater acceptance on the desktop is a distro that is as conservative as Debian but as "friendly" as Mandrake. But while such a distro will be good for the newbie, it won't be accepted by the community.
Case in point: Corel LinuxOS. It was exactly what the newbie needed, but it was panned out of existance for not being a power-user's distro.
I'm still waiting for the day when the GCC crew gets a clue. Proper prior planning prevents perennial problems. There's absolutely no reason for this incompatibility.
ISO Standard C++ is not changing, so there's no reason to change the ABI. If you have to change the ABI it can only mean that they did it wrong the first time. They *know* that G++ is eventually going to be 100% standard C++ compliant, so they should have finalized the ABI as soon as possible after the standard was released.
Let me get this straight: you don't use Linux, let alone Mandrake, yet you're spouting off on the benefits of Mandrake...
Your stated benefits for Mandrake also apply to several other distros. Did you just not get the time to read the back of their boxes as well? Mandrake might be the best Linux distro for you. But there is no way you can tell until you actually have some experience under your belt.
First, what do I do when someone submits a patch that violates my 'mission'?
Thank the submitter for their interest in the project, politely inform them that the patch will not be accepted, state the reasons why, and don't accept it.
What if I get a patch that I don't understand?
Ask the committer for documentation, code comments, or similar. If you still don't understand it, don't accept it.
What if someone gets angry and decides to fork the project?
So? What's the problem? Let them fork.
Really get a kick out of you BSD guys trying to use the -Current and -Stable shit to try to say you dont have security holes.
Go find out what -CURRENT actually is before you comment further. You are in serious danger of choking on your own foot...
Just because -CURRENT is publicly available does not mean that it is released. An analogy is in order. -RELEASE is equivalent to linux-2.4.18. -STABLE is equivalent to linux-2.5.27. -CURRENT is equivalent to whatever is on Linus' harddrive at this very instant.
I'm with you. I don't care what OS it runs. All I care is that I can operate it from the OS I run on my desktop.
There's that old saying that Linux is for people that hate Windows and BSD is for people that love Unix. I see a lot of truth in that statement.
Linux didn't start out as an alternative to Windows. It started out as an alternative to Minix and proprietary unices. Linus wanted a unix on his computer. GNU was grossly incomplete. BSD was being mugged by AT&T. Everything else was proprietary. So he started his own.
It wasn't until the age of Slashdot when a significant minority of Linux users (not coders) decided that Linux had to be an alternative or replacement for Windows.
But it wasn't the world press saying "of course Gore must of won, so count those votes a fifth time! And keep counting them until you get the results we want!"
In California we use the classic punch cards. We have never had a problem with them. They are easy to use, poll workers available to demonstrate their use to expatriot Floridans, and we get our poll results counted and finalized by 11PM as well.
The Florida fiasco was one of perception only. People outside of the US need to realize that the US media are professional scare mongerers.
I simply do not want to live in a jurisdiction which requires ID's to vote.
And I don't want to live in a jurisdiction that allows people outside of the jurisdiction to vote in my jurisdiction.
"One person one vote" only works if you ensure that there is one vote per person. An ID of some kind, or a verifiable address, are the easiest ways to verify this.