To be honest, I don't like the whole idea of SaaS at all, which is what this "cloud" computing is. In the end all it does is take control away from the user, regardless of the software being open or not. I can see it being used for a business so that employees can take their work home with them, but once you start trusting others with your data, you're going down a dangerous path.
If rms had his way, you'd have the source code the the software you use now and the freedom to do what you want with it, that is all. That is all he has ever asked for.
You clearly don't actually listen to what rms says. He doesn't hate people that use proprietary software, he usually tries to educate them on its evils, of which there are plenty. And he doesn't want everyone to use free software other than the fact that he wants all software to be free software. Photoshop, Windows, etc. Those could all be licensed under the GPL today (probably not) and they would be right in Stallman's eyes. Why not? They respect user freedom, and they would have the functionality that everyone wants. He only wants the developer to respect user freedoms. He doesn't care to force users to do anything.
Freedom and functionality are not mutually exclusive, you know? What would have changed if iOS or OSX were free software? Nothing. The code is the same, but now it's available. Most won't use it, but some will, and in the process, it might make for a more robust system. Really, why not just make it free software? Is there anything really limiting about it?
I don't think anyone has a problem with the 1% just because they have wealth. People have a problem with them wielding disproportional political power and using that power to siphon off more wealth and enacting public policy that only benefits them. Regulation and Taxation are only ways to regulate industry to certain people from benefiting from the overall failure of the market or even their individual companies. Taking big money out of politics is a better first step to diminishing their power. I don't like government regulating public life, but industry is to be regulated.
A corporation is not a citizen. Citizens are represented in government, not just anyone, even if you do believe that corporations are people like you and me. Taxation of corporations are just taxes on a collective asset of many people, who are individually represented in government. A rich man, just like a poor man can vote equally. The problem with corporations is that it gives owners of large sums of capital the ability to multiply their representation in government. Corporations are very much represented in government, but they are just a proxy for a single or a small group of individuals' wishes.
Certain techniques can be unethical, but in the end, the research has to be done one way or another. Saying that we should not study something is just wrong and does deprive society of knowledge.
It's again, just a cell. Also bringing "The Creator" into the discussion does you no good. This is a discussion about science and ethics, and your religion isn't any more valid than mine, whatever it may be. You will never find a point at which the cell becomes distinctly human, since it happens in slow progressions. That being said, you ignore the fact that these embryonic stem cells would just be thrown away anyway. Then again, I ask you, what is the problem? Until it can live outside the woman's body, that group of cells is just a parasite with human genes.
No matter how you put it, prohibiting any kind of research is immoral, because it deprives society of knowledge. The techniques that we use my be ethical or unethical, but I've yet to see any proper argument against any kind of stem cell research. Let's be honest with each other here for a moment, a group of cells cannot think and has no rights, cannot survive without the host, and those that do go to this kind of research would be thrown away anyway. So what "ethical" questions would any of this research raise?
Then he's simply not all powerful. People often say logic doesn't apply to god, but apparently it does. That raises the question: Does God have free will? If he knows all, then he must know his next actions too, therefore, even he is just a puppet, but one that can see his strings. This again means that he's not all powerful, since he cannot deviate from preset paths.
You didn't read deep enough. If god is all powerful, why require a learning process? Why not just create perfect beings that also had free will. Or is he not all powerful? And if he is, then why is there evil?
The argument here is that it may become an issue with someone who has an accent, but is perfectly understandable. I can see where they are coming from.
No, that would not create jobs, or at least as many as you would expect. They would just base themselves here, but manufacturing would still be overseas.
You know, it's not exactly ideological to ask you to pay your taxes. The ideologues are the ones who say that we should pretty much cut all taxes, now that is reality distortion.
The taxes that they pay, is the price that must be rendered to live in this society. If you don't want to pay taxes, then stop using that government issued currency, stop using the infrastructure build with those taxes and move to Somalia. I'm sure that a smart capitalist will be able to make a great industry in a place where they are not hindered by government.
By definition the average worker does not keep the all the money that is produced by his work, not because of taxes even, but because the company must turn a profit. It's a sort of tax if you think about it. If the company paid each worker exactly what they produced, there would be no profit, and there would be no wealthy people. We accept this, so why can't the wealthy accept that they must pay taxes to live in this nation? Are they not the ones who benefit the most from the infrastructure, since they must ship their goods to be sold? Do they not benefit from the armed forces, which exist now only to protect their interests, not defending the nation. It isn't the rich, that fight in wars, it isn't they who build roads. It's everyday people that do these things. They do not work as hard as you think they do.
You don't reward criminals for their crimes. The ones doing the killing right now need to be put down like dogs. I understand that legalization is necessary, but I don't feel comfortable with rewarding their murder with millions.
Well, in his defense, I haven't heard a single leftist cheer loudly for the death of a man in a comma. So I guess it's just some asshole, but he's on the right, not the left(which doesn't even exist in the US anyway).
It's not that the US makes money, but private prisons and other industries tied to the judicial system make bank by taking money from the US Gov. They are effectively stealing from you, since you paid taxes to imprison people for simple possession. The war on drugs also has a social toll, because of the death and violence that it causes.
From my understanding, these people are not just involved in drugs, but also kidnappings and other illegal activities. They have infiltrated the government and have made a large part of the police force ineffective because of this. These people, the cartels, the zetas, whatever they call themselves are actual terrorists, and traitors to their country. They need to die, even if part of the solution is to legalize drugs.
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest, I don't like the whole idea of SaaS at all, which is what this "cloud" computing is. In the end all it does is take control away from the user, regardless of the software being open or not. I can see it being used for a business so that employees can take their work home with them, but once you start trusting others with your data, you're going down a dangerous path.
If rms had his way, you'd have the source code the the software you use now and the freedom to do what you want with it, that is all. That is all he has ever asked for.
You clearly don't actually listen to what rms says. He doesn't hate people that use proprietary software, he usually tries to educate them on its evils, of which there are plenty. And he doesn't want everyone to use free software other than the fact that he wants all software to be free software. Photoshop, Windows, etc. Those could all be licensed under the GPL today (probably not) and they would be right in Stallman's eyes. Why not? They respect user freedom, and they would have the functionality that everyone wants. He only wants the developer to respect user freedoms. He doesn't care to force users to do anything.
Freedom and functionality are not mutually exclusive, you know? What would have changed if iOS or OSX were free software? Nothing. The code is the same, but now it's available. Most won't use it, but some will, and in the process, it might make for a more robust system. Really, why not just make it free software? Is there anything really limiting about it?
I don't think anyone has a problem with the 1% just because they have wealth. People have a problem with them wielding disproportional political power and using that power to siphon off more wealth and enacting public policy that only benefits them. Regulation and Taxation are only ways to regulate industry to certain people from benefiting from the overall failure of the market or even their individual companies. Taking big money out of politics is a better first step to diminishing their power. I don't like government regulating public life, but industry is to be regulated.
A corporation is not a citizen. Citizens are represented in government, not just anyone, even if you do believe that corporations are people like you and me. Taxation of corporations are just taxes on a collective asset of many people, who are individually represented in government. A rich man, just like a poor man can vote equally. The problem with corporations is that it gives owners of large sums of capital the ability to multiply their representation in government. Corporations are very much represented in government, but they are just a proxy for a single or a small group of individuals' wishes.
Certain techniques can be unethical, but in the end, the research has to be done one way or another. Saying that we should not study something is just wrong and does deprive society of knowledge.
It's again, just a cell. Also bringing "The Creator" into the discussion does you no good. This is a discussion about science and ethics, and your religion isn't any more valid than mine, whatever it may be. You will never find a point at which the cell becomes distinctly human, since it happens in slow progressions. That being said, you ignore the fact that these embryonic stem cells would just be thrown away anyway. Then again, I ask you, what is the problem? Until it can live outside the woman's body, that group of cells is just a parasite with human genes.
No matter how you put it, prohibiting any kind of research is immoral, because it deprives society of knowledge. The techniques that we use my be ethical or unethical, but I've yet to see any proper argument against any kind of stem cell research. Let's be honest with each other here for a moment, a group of cells cannot think and has no rights, cannot survive without the host, and those that do go to this kind of research would be thrown away anyway. So what "ethical" questions would any of this research raise?
Ha! Not in your life, bro. They'll hear the word cloning, and try to outlaw it. The anti-science people are very vocal.
Then he's simply not all powerful. People often say logic doesn't apply to god, but apparently it does. That raises the question: Does God have free will? If he knows all, then he must know his next actions too, therefore, even he is just a puppet, but one that can see his strings. This again means that he's not all powerful, since he cannot deviate from preset paths.
You didn't read deep enough. If god is all powerful, why require a learning process? Why not just create perfect beings that also had free will. Or is he not all powerful? And if he is, then why is there evil?
The argument here is that it may become an issue with someone who has an accent, but is perfectly understandable. I can see where they are coming from.
I have nice carpet, and I'd rather it stay that way.
The way they handled this game is idiotic. It's like they know they're about to run out of WoW stuff and now they need another cash cow.
No, that would not create jobs, or at least as many as you would expect. They would just base themselves here, but manufacturing would still be overseas.
You know, it's not exactly ideological to ask you to pay your taxes. The ideologues are the ones who say that we should pretty much cut all taxes, now that is reality distortion.
The taxes that they pay, is the price that must be rendered to live in this society. If you don't want to pay taxes, then stop using that government issued currency, stop using the infrastructure build with those taxes and move to Somalia. I'm sure that a smart capitalist will be able to make a great industry in a place where they are not hindered by government.
By definition the average worker does not keep the all the money that is produced by his work, not because of taxes even, but because the company must turn a profit. It's a sort of tax if you think about it. If the company paid each worker exactly what they produced, there would be no profit, and there would be no wealthy people. We accept this, so why can't the wealthy accept that they must pay taxes to live in this nation? Are they not the ones who benefit the most from the infrastructure, since they must ship their goods to be sold? Do they not benefit from the armed forces, which exist now only to protect their interests, not defending the nation. It isn't the rich, that fight in wars, it isn't they who build roads. It's everyday people that do these things. They do not work as hard as you think they do.
You don't reward criminals for their crimes. The ones doing the killing right now need to be put down like dogs. I understand that legalization is necessary, but I don't feel comfortable with rewarding their murder with millions.
Well, in his defense, I haven't heard a single leftist cheer loudly for the death of a man in a comma. So I guess it's just some asshole, but he's on the right, not the left(which doesn't even exist in the US anyway).
gang irradiation
Then you'd have mutant gangs. Can you imagine a shootout between the Hulk and the police? That would make it worse!
It's not that the US makes money, but private prisons and other industries tied to the judicial system make bank by taking money from the US Gov. They are effectively stealing from you, since you paid taxes to imprison people for simple possession. The war on drugs also has a social toll, because of the death and violence that it causes.
From my understanding, these people are not just involved in drugs, but also kidnappings and other illegal activities. They have infiltrated the government and have made a large part of the police force ineffective because of this. These people, the cartels, the zetas, whatever they call themselves are actual terrorists, and traitors to their country. They need to die, even if part of the solution is to legalize drugs.
The answer could also be both.