$7M according to the article. That's probably how they estimated if the Irak invasion was a good investments or not. I can just imagine the US president saying "Well, a/democratized/ Irak can give us about x billions $ in contracts, so we can spend at least y soldiers life in trying to give Irak some liberties..." Seen anything wrong in such arguments? If we kill more people, will the price of individual life raised since the offers goes down? Can we really apply such kind of comptability methods to ethics and life (and sorry, I can't call this economy; economy has almost nothing to do with money; insurance, comptability, fiscality, management... yes. But for economy, money is just one factor, one of the most imprevisible one also).
Also, for me, punishing for a crime doesn't give the right to commit the same act, even on a criminal. A civilized society should be examplar to their own value. The value behind a death sentence system is one of vengeance, which is just an open door for personal vengeance and other personal appropriation of violence for "bringing up justice".
More than that, I don't think death penalty has never avoid someone of killing someone else. Murderers don't think "Is it worth than I risk death penalty if I get caught?" They either think they will never get caught or don't think at all. So long for the arguments about death sentence as an incitation for good behavior.
As for death sentence against a crime which only cost money... Well, bad management, bad legislation and corruption have made developped lost much more moneys to the profits of some individuals and, for most, no body get even sued against such behavior. $100M is far from a lot of money, especially compare to the amount of money those company spends in loosy investments and bad marketing. For me, there is far more money to gain by punishing those peoples instead of some "vermiscripters".
I like to life, to eat, to do things. I'm a junkie reader, junkie writer, junkie dancer. I'm even a junkie worker sometime. I need that. Deprive me from that for quite sometime, and I will need to get to it, unless you replace it with something else.
Being dependant on something is not a flaw. It's normal, it's not only human, but proper to many living thing. The dependency reaction is the way the nature have found to remind us of what we need, what make us feel better.
The "junkie problem" is not only about being dependent. Is about being dependant on things that damage your life, either physical, interrelationnal or citizen life. From the things that can endanger your life, a lot will do no harm if taken with moderation. And usually, moderation will do no harm. So, it's a good thing to be a moderate junkie.;)
I found this kind of study really disturbing because they forget about this essential truth. They're looking for a culprit and forget that, primarily, all human can moderate themself and that exaggeration in almost any pleasure can do as most harm as any other poison. Even the Greek Epicurian know this basic wisdom. Why we still have to repeat it again?
I prefer to put 50$ for the Windows copy in the PC... but here what I
get:
Supposed I buy a Debian CD from Cheap Bite: 10$. I install them on the
developpers machines of a medium-small enterprise in the Engineering
field: 5$ Debian CD x 50 machines = still 5$. But the Windows OEM just
have cost me 2500$. So, especially in the enterprise level, Windows is
very more expensive since it doesn't scale well.
But we already know that Windows doesn't scale, no?
The royalty for the is not that much: something like 0.50$US by player.
I don't think it's a big market stopper although the minimum licencing
is 15,000 units.
BTW, I still prefer Ogg/Vorbis. I'm looking to make it in fix points
algorithm for better performance on arm and other non-fpu embedded
platform.
[ Stable ]----(new code)--->[ current ]
+--------(erratas)---->[ release ]
In Debian
[ stable ] = official release + erratas
^
[ testing ] = unstable with some checks
^
[ unstable ] = new code that dinstall at least accept
^
[ experimental ] = mad science packaged -- please never let apt pointed
on this one!
OK, this will be a real big example. Exageration are intended to show the point. Take a big company, said MS. Let this company removing there dear Explorer and replace with, said, Konqueror. Let this company use there dear "Embrassed and Enhanced" practice and modify it so Konqueror can now display multiple new MS-XML proprietary extensions through a DLL. Patches for Konqueror are distributed normally under the GPL, but no code for the libraries which even required a special registrations and agreement to not used it under anything else than MS products. Aren't this fare? (1)
I think not. Konqueror is licenced to be free. Free to use by anyone on any OS. The example addon made by MS in my examples just made Konqueror-with-MS-XML a part of MS with no regards for the intentions of the original authors, which should be clearly disclaimed in their license. They treat their code mostly like public domain code, breaking the usability of the code and crippling the software for use on other OS. I really feel like KDE (not TT) take all this issue the same way. They take GPL software, add dependencies over a non-free library (remember that most KDE 1.2 are release over Qt 1.x which aren't under the QPL), and doesn't even ask for permissions of the original author. They choose to ignore the warning of several people, mostly because they don't care about all this and don't believe it there are any issue. If there are no issue, why they simply don't add the "exemption clause" stating that you can link the program (including ghostview) against Qt?
Instead of simply make their lessons KDE choose to don't care about and then complain about conspiracy from Debian because is the only distribution who refused to engage themself into distributing codes where the license said you doesn't have the right to do so. KDE simply refused to clarify this issue, preferring hide their heads in the sand of their own interpretation (are they lawyers? have they ask the original authors?).
I'm really happy to see TT trying to make the QPL 2.0 compatible with the GPL but this doesn't change the arrogant attitude that KDE has with regards to the intentions of the authors, stated by the license under which the code is distributed. They modify it and distribute it, adding dependencies with a more restrictively licensed library, without even asking the original authors if they can, especially when the issue was often points by many as not that clear as they claim. The simple fact to trying to reach those authors would had prove their respect to free software authors but their mailing list show that even initiative to do that by some members was clearly seens as a waste of time.
For this, I avoid KDE the best I can, whatever the technical merits of their desktop, just like I avoid MS: they both behave badly regarding usage of other people code, making cheating a common practice that we should ackowledge.
(1): I know that the GPL has loophole permitting this. MS just have to distribute the DLL with their OS and sell Konqueror-MS-edition a separate bundle. Is not my intention, neither my hability, to analyse such text. I will try to make my point by defining the licenses as a (fuzzy) claim of intention from the author of the software. When the intentions became ambiguous, it should be the responsability of the authors of derived works or the distributors to ask the original authors for a clarification. This task is necessary to improve the license and not build our relationships around misinterpretation.
Given your argument, we should had a SSL Apache almost at the same time that the commercial proprietary extension appears in the market. I agree that having a feature available in proprietary form is better then none, but I really think that the GPL encourages more people to freed their code than the BSD licences, which simply make you not bother about this once it's implement. In fact, the encouragement came from the possibility to see your code improves, possibility whom is rare for complicated code that really benefits the Free Software Community.
May be code under the GPL was less used than code under a BSD-like license. However, I'm pretty sure that improvements was gived back more often for GPLed code than BSD-licensed code.
Also, be sure that the GPL, even with many real or imaginary loopholes, protect you much better than any derivation of the BSD licence, which is just a public domain declarations with authorship acknowledgement. Claiming the contrary is pure lie, and claiming (has you do) that the GPL protection is null because of the some unproved loopholes is a stupid sophism just like this one: "BSD can run Office2000, so BSD can run a Word Processor."
PS: I personnaly prefer BSD code when working as consultant so that my client can do whatever they want with their code with the only necessity to acknowledge the work of many. However, for personal work I do, I prefer to use GPL code, ensuring me that the software will always improved and reducing the possibility of forks and duplicate works.
A good judge will consider this tactic to simply circumventing a licence, which is illegal. You'll to prove that the GPL clearly allow you to do so, (not just maybe let you dig this little supposely legal hole that you think you see) or that the authors as clearly allow you to do so.
So please, respect other people copyright. They could have choose the GPL, the BSD, the Artistic licence or even the EULA of Microsoft. However, take care that the licence terms you used don't conflict with those of the libraries (licensed by other people with specific reasons in mind) you used. That's the error of the KDE team: thinking that they can do whatever they want with GPL code as long as the code is GPLed itself. That's not true and the restrictions aren't there for nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
$7M according to the article. That's probably how they estimated if the Irak invasion was a good investments or not. I can just imagine the US president saying "Well, a /democratized/ Irak can give us about x billions $ in contracts, so we can spend at least y soldiers life in trying to give Irak some liberties..." Seen anything wrong in such arguments? If we kill more people, will the price of individual life raised since the offers goes down? Can we really apply such kind of comptability methods to ethics and life (and sorry, I can't call this economy; economy has almost nothing to do with money; insurance, comptability, fiscality, management... yes. But for economy, money is just one factor, one of the most imprevisible one also).
Also, for me, punishing for a crime doesn't give the right to commit the same act, even on a criminal. A civilized society should be examplar to their own value. The value behind a death sentence system is one of vengeance, which is just an open door for personal vengeance and other personal appropriation of violence for "bringing up justice".
More than that, I don't think death penalty has never avoid someone of killing someone else. Murderers don't think "Is it worth than I risk death penalty if I get caught?" They either think they will never get caught or don't think at all. So long for the arguments about death sentence as an incitation for good behavior.
As for death sentence against a crime which only cost money... Well, bad management, bad legislation and corruption have made developped lost much more moneys to the profits of some individuals and, for most, no body get even sued against such behavior. $100M is far from a lot of money, especially compare to the amount of money those company spends in loosy investments and bad marketing. For me, there is far more money to gain by punishing those peoples instead of some "vermiscripters".
Still, I continue to think that Glade, and especially libglade, are the way to go in term of separations of UI and code.
I like to life, to eat, to do things. I'm a junkie reader, junkie writer, junkie dancer. I'm even a junkie worker sometime. I need that. Deprive me from that for quite sometime, and I will need to get to it, unless you replace it with something else.
;)
Being dependant on something is not a flaw. It's normal, it's not only human, but proper to many living thing. The dependency reaction is the way the nature have found to remind us of what we need, what make us feel better.
The "junkie problem" is not only about being dependent. Is about being dependant on things that damage your life, either physical, interrelationnal or citizen life. From the things that can endanger your life, a lot will do no harm if taken with moderation. And usually, moderation will do no harm. So, it's a good thing to be a moderate junkie.
I found this kind of study really disturbing because they forget about this essential truth. They're looking for a culprit and forget that, primarily, all human can moderate themself and that exaggeration in almost any pleasure can do as most harm as any other poison. Even the Greek Epicurian know this basic wisdom. Why we still have to repeat it again?
Frankly, I prefer 'apt-get moo' on Super Cow Powered APT.
;)
Try it at home!
I prefer to put 50$ for the Windows copy in the PC... but here what I get: Supposed I buy a Debian CD from Cheap Bite: 10$. I install them on the developpers machines of a medium-small enterprise in the Engineering field: 5$ Debian CD x 50 machines = still 5$. But the Windows OEM just have cost me 2500$. So, especially in the enterprise level, Windows is very more expensive since it doesn't scale well. But we already know that Windows doesn't scale, no?
The royalty for the is not that much: something like 0.50$US by player. I don't think it's a big market stopper although the minimum licencing is 15,000 units. BTW, I still prefer Ogg/Vorbis. I'm looking to make it in fix points algorithm for better performance on arm and other non-fpu embedded platform.
In FreeBSD:
[ Stable ]----(new code)--->[ current ]
+--------(erratas)---->[ release ]
In Debian
[ stable ] = official release + erratas
^
[ testing ] = unstable with some checks
^
[ unstable ] = new code that dinstall at least accept
^
[ experimental ] = mad science packaged -- please never let apt pointed on this one!
OK, this will be a real big example. Exageration are intended to show the point. Take a big company, said MS. Let this company removing there dear Explorer and replace with, said, Konqueror. Let this company use there dear "Embrassed and Enhanced" practice and modify it so Konqueror can now display multiple new MS-XML proprietary extensions through a DLL. Patches for Konqueror are distributed normally under the GPL, but no code for the libraries which even required a special registrations and agreement to not used it under anything else than MS products. Aren't this fare? (1)
I think not. Konqueror is licenced to be free. Free to use by anyone on any OS. The example addon made by MS in my examples just made Konqueror-with-MS-XML a part of MS with no regards for the intentions of the original authors, which should be clearly disclaimed in their license. They treat their code mostly like public domain code, breaking the usability of the code and crippling the software for use on other OS. I really feel like KDE (not TT) take all this issue the same way. They take GPL software, add dependencies over a non-free library (remember that most KDE 1.2 are release over Qt 1.x which aren't under the QPL), and doesn't even ask for permissions of the original author. They choose to ignore the warning of several people, mostly because they don't care about all this and don't believe it there are any issue. If there are no issue, why they simply don't add the "exemption clause" stating that you can link the program (including ghostview) against Qt?
Instead of simply make their lessons KDE choose to don't care about and then complain about conspiracy from Debian because is the only distribution who refused to engage themself into distributing codes where the license said you doesn't have the right to do so. KDE simply refused to clarify this issue, preferring hide their heads in the sand of their own interpretation (are they lawyers? have they ask the original authors?).
I'm really happy to see TT trying to make the QPL 2.0 compatible with the GPL but this doesn't change the arrogant attitude that KDE has with regards to the intentions of the authors, stated by the license under which the code is distributed. They modify it and distribute it, adding dependencies with a more restrictively licensed library, without even asking the original authors if they can, especially when the issue was often points by many as not that clear as they claim. The simple fact to trying to reach those authors would had prove their respect to free software authors but their mailing list show that even initiative to do that by some members was clearly seens as a waste of time.
For this, I avoid KDE the best I can, whatever the technical merits of their desktop, just like I avoid MS: they both behave badly regarding usage of other people code, making cheating a common practice that we should ackowledge.
(1): I know that the GPL has loophole permitting this. MS just have to distribute the DLL with their OS and sell Konqueror-MS-edition a separate bundle. Is not my intention, neither my hability, to analyse such text. I will try to make my point by defining the licenses as a (fuzzy) claim of intention from the author of the software. When the intentions became ambiguous, it should be the responsability of the authors of derived works or the distributors to ask the original authors for a clarification. This task is necessary to improve the license and not build our relationships around misinterpretation.
May be code under the GPL was less used than code under a BSD-like license. However, I'm pretty sure that improvements was gived back more often for GPLed code than BSD-licensed code.
Also, be sure that the GPL, even with many real or imaginary loopholes, protect you much better than any derivation of the BSD licence, which is just a public domain declarations with authorship acknowledgement. Claiming the contrary is pure lie, and claiming (has you do) that the GPL protection is null because of the some unproved loopholes is a stupid sophism just like this one: "BSD can run Office2000, so BSD can run a Word Processor."
PS: I personnaly prefer BSD code when working as consultant so that my client can do whatever they want with their code with the only necessity to acknowledge the work of many. However, for personal work I do, I prefer to use GPL code, ensuring me that the software will always improved and reducing the possibility of forks and duplicate works.
So please, respect other people copyright. They could have choose the GPL, the BSD, the Artistic licence or even the EULA of Microsoft. However, take care that the licence terms you used don't conflict with those of the libraries (licensed by other people with specific reasons in mind) you used. That's the error of the KDE team: thinking that they can do whatever they want with GPL code as long as the code is GPLed itself. That's not true and the restrictions aren't there for nothing.