I guess you can't read or have little to no reading comprehension. Saying that everyone else has to provide neutral sources, which members and supporters of the Pirate party have repeated done on Slashdot, then saying it is OK to support their positions with biased sites run by supporters is expecting special treatment.
I figure you are just another selfish asshole, like the rest of the pussy pirate party.
Nice attempt to cloud the issue, but it won't work. In every solution, there are parts that make money, and there may be parts that lose money. Which parts of the "business solutions" you refer to make money and which lose money?
No, it is like I said, because we are talking about a SINGLE FUCKING COMPANY THAT BOUGHT ANOTHER SINGLE FUCKING COMPANY THAT HAD OPENSOURCE SOFTWARED. In no way did anyone else buy Sun. Now, if you are done lying, please shut the fuck up.
Every time something like this comes up, FLOSS lying shithead like you ignore the facts and make shit up then say "See?" No, I don't see what delusions you have because I see the real world where ONE COMPANY bought another company, not all the companies getting together to buy one company. The fact that you think those two situations are equivalent shows you to be either an idiot or a liar. Either way continuing this conversation is worthless as you are either naturally or willfully ignorant.
Umm, often the services in question are dependent upon the OSS. In many cases the services are developing, fixing, updating, and improving the OSS.
That only makes business sense if the cost is less than the benefit. In this case the cost of developers, SME, marketing, etc would have to be less than the money they bring in and much less than the apparent value.
Asking why someone would support/develop OSS if it is a cost is like asking a car company why they would buy a bolt making plant if the bolts themselves just go into their cars. Just stop making bolts and buy them more expensively elsewhere or stop using them and be unable to make working cars. The former loses money overall and the latter is idiotic.
Actually, no. Your analogy is bad. A car company could buy the bolt factory, use the bolts themselves, and sell the bolts at a profit. But, that is not how things are for software in general and for Oracle and Sun in particular. Oracle bought Sun and acquired a hardware component, a proprietary software component, and an open source software component. Oracle doesn't need the open source component because they have the higher profit proprietary component. They can't sell the open source products because who would buy it when it would soon be available for download? If they let business uses it, they hurt the proprietary software component.
It is akin to the car company buying the bolt factory, then giving away the bolts for free to everyone, including their competitors.
Ask Nokia if supporting OSS is profitable. I mean they are running Android on some new phones they sell and providing support for users of Android and submitting bug reports and fixes to Android and spending lots of money making Webkit better. Wouldn't they be better off not supporting Android or Webkit and for that matter not open sourcing Symbian. They can just use a closed fork of Symbian, surely that will make them more money because then they're spending money on closed source costs instead of open source costs.
Nokia doesn't own Android, Google does. Google makes money on Android by tying it to their services. Symbian is not developed by Nokia. Nokia acquired it, sold it at a profit to other device manufactures, and now that the market is diluted and shifting away from Symbian, Nokia is open sourcing Symbian rather than spend the money to improve it. As you have already mentioned, Nokia itself is diversifying its offering.
WebKit is a browser engine and browsers are almost all given away, free. Apple is spending money developing WebKit, but their final product, Safari, is given away because they are competing with products that are given away: IE, FireFox, Chrome, etc. If they didn't feel the need to include a web browser with their OS, it would make no sense to spend the money on WebKit.
You should go take a few business classes to understand why your examples are exceptions and not the rule.
Actually, that is a horrible analogy. There are no slaves involved. In fact, it is a question of whether Oracle continues to pay "hired labor" to develop and maintain something that may not be generating any profit and may be actually losing money.
Oracle would have to pay for it in the form of developers, etc. That it would be profitable for you is irrelevant to Oracle because it, like you, cares most about its profit.
Unless you get all those open source projects for free with the thing you are really interested in buying. Then, it is just a matter of deciding if you want to keep those projects going, which is a matter of whether there is any profit in doing so.
Then, why should a for-profit company support open source if open source is not profitable. A better strategy would be to provide the services you mention, assuming said services are, in fact, profitable and the ROI is worth it.
I am afraid you need a refresher in reading comprehension and a course in logic. The program you mention "had the promise of collecting communications while protecting Americans' privacy" but it does not say that any information he provided showed a violation of anyone's privacy nor does it say that the information he provided showed any injustice. Evidence for (or against) one thing is not evidence against (or for) something else.
So, if I hand you a copy of the NYT that states that martians have landed in SoHo to buy some leather pants, that immediately becomes a fact to you?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That is also a false dichotomy and a red herring. If the NYT stated that person A did thing X and Wikipedia said person B, not person A, did thing X, then I would believe the NYT over Wikipedia. If the NYT stated what you claim, then I would require independent validation of such an extraordinary claim and event.
It is not hypocrisy. If the two cases were similar, which they are not, then you might have an argument. As it is, it appears Libby was authorized by the President to release the information. Libby did not break the law in that regard. He was tried for obstruction of justice and perjury.
As Drake was not authorized release the information and Libby apparently was authorized, the cases are not similar, let alone the same.
If the information is classified to cover up injustice.
The information he provided was not to cover up injustice, therefore your argument fails.
You know you can click on the links, right? Then look at the domain, and see if it's legit, or look up the ISBN number and do a Google Books search. I'm almost certain you do not understand what the verb "verify" means.
In other words, Wikipedia is an untrusted source. Why should I do that when I can find a trusted and trustable source?
Then, what exactly did you mean by "Can anyone say Valerie Plame?"
So, your idea of a direct relationship is "They both involve leaked information"? That is all it takes? Well, hell, we can just give everyone ever convicted of passing on classified information a pardon./sarcasm
Again, you are arguing using a fallacy, specifically, two wrongs make a right.
By Wikipedia's own admission, anyone can edit an article at any time, therefore the information in the article can not be trusted at any point in time.
At the time Tennet was Director of the CIA, the intelligence budge was considered classified information. The release of classified information is at the discretion of the federal government. There is a federal budget, the analysis of which is published by no fewer than four different agencies. Maybe you should try researching the federal budget and the budget process.
In other words, your quote actually argues against your point because Drake was breaking the law. The information Drake released did not show any illegal acts, merely failed projects the nature and existence of which were classified. Drake violated the law and was indicted by a grand jury. Your quote does not help your cause in the least.
By pointing to Wikipedia, you undermine your own argument. Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.
A "regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." It is. The budget is published, with certain details redacted for national security purposes. This is completely legal and constitutional.
Your Jefferson quote does not support your position. Drake is not being held without benefit of habeas corpus. He has been charged with a crime and indicted as described in Amendment 5 of the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
When we are going to abolish copyright? This is hypocrisy! This is using the same evil tactics that ??AA uses!
What is the matter? Can't find any? Didn't think so.
I guess you can't read or have little to no reading comprehension. Saying that everyone else has to provide neutral sources, which members and supporters of the Pirate party have repeated done on Slashdot, then saying it is OK to support their positions with biased sites run by supporters is expecting special treatment.
I figure you are just another selfish asshole, like the rest of the pussy pirate party.
Nice attempt to cloud the issue, but it won't work. In every solution, there are parts that make money, and there may be parts that lose money. Which parts of the "business solutions" you refer to make money and which lose money?
No, it is like I said, because we are talking about a SINGLE FUCKING COMPANY THAT BOUGHT ANOTHER SINGLE FUCKING COMPANY THAT HAD OPENSOURCE SOFTWARED. In no way did anyone else buy Sun. Now, if you are done lying, please shut the fuck up.
Every time something like this comes up, FLOSS lying shithead like you ignore the facts and make shit up then say "See?" No, I don't see what delusions you have because I see the real world where ONE COMPANY bought another company, not all the companies getting together to buy one company. The fact that you think those two situations are equivalent shows you to be either an idiot or a liar. Either way continuing this conversation is worthless as you are either naturally or willfully ignorant.
How many successful orbital launches have they had?
How many successful launches have they had?
How is a recitation of the facts a troll?
That only makes business sense if the cost is less than the benefit. In this case the cost of developers, SME, marketing, etc would have to be less than the money they bring in and much less than the apparent value.
This is not about selling the hardware and proprietary software. It is about making a profit on the Sun open source products that Oracle just bought.
Sounds to me like they make most, if not all, of their money on the hardware.
Actually, that is a horrible analogy. There are no slaves involved. In fact, it is a question of whether Oracle continues to pay "hired labor" to develop and maintain something that may not be generating any profit and may be actually losing money.
Oracle would have to pay for it in the form of developers, etc. That it would be profitable for you is irrelevant to Oracle because it, like you, cares most about its profit.
Unless you get all those open source projects for free with the thing you are really interested in buying. Then, it is just a matter of deciding if you want to keep those projects going, which is a matter of whether there is any profit in doing so.
That is what Oracle is apparently asking.
What is IBM making money on, the open source software or the hardware it runs on and supporting same?
But, by believing open source is a good model, you have indicated that you are not actually willing to buy software.
Then, why should a for-profit company support open source if open source is not profitable. A better strategy would be to provide the services you mention, assuming said services are, in fact, profitable and the ROI is worth it.
I am afraid you need a refresher in reading comprehension and a course in logic. The program you mention "had the promise of collecting communications while protecting Americans' privacy" but it does not say that any information he provided showed a violation of anyone's privacy nor does it say that the information he provided showed any injustice. Evidence for (or against) one thing is not evidence against (or for) something else.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That is also a false dichotomy and a red herring. If the NYT stated that person A did thing X and Wikipedia said person B, not person A, did thing X, then I would believe the NYT over Wikipedia. If the NYT stated what you claim, then I would require independent validation of such an extraordinary claim and event.
So, Boosh back at you, dumbass.
It is not hypocrisy. If the two cases were similar, which they are not, then you might have an argument. As it is, it appears Libby was authorized by the President to release the information. Libby did not break the law in that regard. He was tried for obstruction of justice and perjury.
As Drake was not authorized release the information and Libby apparently was authorized, the cases are not similar, let alone the same.
The information he provided was not to cover up injustice, therefore your argument fails.
In other words, Wikipedia is an untrusted source. Why should I do that when I can find a trusted and trustable source?
That is not what you said, nor is it what your original post implies.
Please explain how a law stating one may not release classified information is unjust.
This is a false statement, as the intelligence budget is no longer considered classified.
As anyone can change Wikipedia at any time, the information contained in Wikipedia is not fact checked, nor is the veracity of the sources verified.
Then, what exactly did you mean by "Can anyone say Valerie Plame?"
So, your idea of a direct relationship is "They both involve leaked information"? That is all it takes? Well, hell, we can just give everyone ever convicted of passing on classified information a pardon. /sarcasm
Again, you are arguing using a fallacy, specifically, two wrongs make a right.
By Wikipedia's own admission, anyone can edit an article at any time, therefore the information in the article can not be trusted at any point in time.
At the time Tennet was Director of the CIA, the intelligence budge was considered classified information. The release of classified information is at the discretion of the federal government. There is a federal budget, the analysis of which is published by no fewer than four different agencies. Maybe you should try researching the federal budget and the budget process.
In other words, your quote actually argues against your point because Drake was breaking the law. The information Drake released did not show any illegal acts, merely failed projects the nature and existence of which were classified. Drake violated the law and was indicted by a grand jury. Your quote does not help your cause in the least.
By pointing to Wikipedia, you undermine your own argument. Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.
A "regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." It is. The budget is published, with certain details redacted for national security purposes. This is completely legal and constitutional.
Your Jefferson quote does not support your position. Drake is not being held without benefit of habeas corpus. He has been charged with a crime and indicted as described in Amendment 5 of the Constitution.