Well, I don't see where mathematics teachers and science teachers are indoctrinating people. There is no politics taught in calculus and physics. So, that's 2 out of the 5 general subject areas where there's little room for that.
In regards to English and Social Sciences, I do agree with you. Liberal Presidents are almost always looked on favorably by history teachers, for example.
However, nothing guarantees that the teachers in private schools will be any better, though I do agree that the system will be more efficient (in that regards, we should put jury-duty on the market). Going from being taught that social programs are the greatest thing since sliced bread -- when, in fact, they are responsible for much economic hazard -- to being taught that sex before marriage is punishable by eternity in hell doesn't sound like much of an improvement to me.
And where do you get the right to brainwash someone elses kids into thinking exactly like YOU do?
If anyone has more rights to a kids education, its the kids parents. Not you.
Pure socialist thinking-- "we need centralized education so we can raise good non-thinking marxists".
No, if someone has more rights to the kids education, its the kids themselves. Kids are not the property of their parents. Parents have no rights regarding their children, only responsibilities to them. To say that parents have rights over their children is to say that they own their children -- slavery.
It is possible to teach facts without teaching opinion. Gravity is a fact. That the earth is round is a fact. The laws of economics are facts. And children can be exposed to ideas without being brainwashed -- encouraging the development of critical thinking. The job of a teacher is to teach facts and cultivate critical thinking regarding theories.
I'll check out the Murrey Rothberg link. If the economics are convincing, I'll change my views. However, if the economics are indeed convincing, they will have have to been more sound and thoroughly argued than what you've posted here, which is hardly convincing.
The reason I call you a socialist is because you are-- you just seem to call yourself a libertarian, and claim that the libertarian flash is belittleing-- even when you don't even seem to get it.
Socialistic thinking supports programs like social security, medicaid, medicare, unemployment, and many other things which I don't.
Irrelevant of whether or not I agree with the flash presentation -- most of which I do -- it is still belittling in the way in which it was presented.
It is very unclear how children's rights fit into this. Do parents have the right to deny their children medical care, because of "religious beliefs"? Why is it that just because your child happens to share 50% of your genes, you have the right to brainwash him or her into thinking exactly like you do, and prevent him or her from being exposed to alternate opinions, and forming opinions of his or her own? And what about prisons? How does putting people who rape and murder in jail square away with this?
SCO must be paying Rob Malda to constantly run stories about it, thus generating more publicity for SCO! It's all a vast evil right wing conspiracy! Bwuhahahahah.
The thing at issue here is copyright. Derivatives don't apply. Only patents cover the actually method; copyrights only cover expressions.
Unless SCO has a patent on these things -- which they don't -- they can't prohibit others from using similar methods to achieve them. If they have a patent on an SMP-method, they can prohibit others from using the same method they use; they cannot, however, prevent people from using other SMP-methods.
If they simply have a copyright, then all that needs to be done is that the code needs to be removed and replaced. The act of re-coding it will most likely result in a different method anyways, safely putting it beyond patent-actionability.
The one-click lawsuit you mention between Amazon and Barnes and Noble is a patent lawsuit, not a copyright lawsuit.
I wasn't trying to turn it against you, though it did sound that say because I said, "there is no plausible way you..." when I should have said "there is no plausible way SCO..." I do realize you were just trying to explain a point that SCO may bring up in court (I was explaining why that point SCO will bring up probably won't work).
It grants rights not given by normal copyright law, upon certain conditions that you must agree to to get those rights. If you don't agree to thsoe conditions, or violate those conditions after agreeing to the GPL, then standard copyright law applies. That means that you've violated standard copyright law.
Very simply, there is no way that the GPL can be defeated in a court-room. But, if it is, that might be good. If the GPL is invalidated, then ALL EULAs would necessarily be invalidated, as they take away rights granted by standard copyright law.
They distributed a GNU/Linux distribution. They had the source for that distribution offered until a few weeks after they launched the lawsuit. There is no plausible way that you can say that it was released by one renegade employee without authority.
If they can prove that Linux infringes upon SysV code that they claim to own, then that code will be removed from Linux and replaced. Period. There will be no issue of charging for it's use. They certainly can't charge for it's use now, as they haven't even shown what code is allegedly infringing. If you tell someone their infringing your copyright, but don't give them the information to allow them to stop infringing, then any legal case you have will go nowhere.
If there is any validity to their claims, the offending code will be expunged from Linux and replaced, which will conclusively end the matter.
In any event, they already GPL'ed all of their code by releasing a GNU/Linux distribution.
He *doesn't* have to provide you with a free copy of it to reverse engineer it. However, he *is* providing you with a free copy of it. It is possible -- but not likely -- that the law would grant you the right to reverse engineer the version you obtained for free.
He has a good argument that he's giving you rights not granted by standard copyright law (to obtain and distribute the binaries free of charge), upon the condition that you don't reverse engineer it.
However, there is no such argument for if you actually pay for it. And it is arguable that the entire group of developers developing a replacement that plays with BK could buy it as a group (though only use it one at a time).
Mis-informed comments again. The GPL grants the user rights and freedoms not granted under copyright law. The EULA takes away rights and freedoms granted under copyright law. You don't have to accept the GPL to use GPL'ed software; you do have to accept EULA's.
Regarding BSD vs. GPL, it is true that the BSD grants absolute freedom. But is that what we really want? Or do we just want as much freedom as possible without giving other's the power to restrict other's freedom using our hard work? The BSD allows proprietary developers to incorporate the work of FS developers while contributing nothing back, allows them to use BSD'ed code to write new code that is under a license that restricts user-freedoms in draconian fashion. The GPL doesn't allow that.
The BSD grants everyone using BSD'd code near-absolute freedom (the original code must still be GPL'ed and credit must be given). This means that they have the freedom to restrict other's freedom. The GPL, forseeing this problem, specifically restricts anyone from denying the freedoms mentioned in the GPL.
If you don't read (and thus don't agree to) the GPL, then standard copyright law applies to you with regard to using GPL'ed software. You can use it however you want for your own personal use, but you can't distribute the code or modified versions of it, or the binaries.
The GPL only grants extra rights that are *not* granted to you by copyright law. Thus, it is most definately enforcible. Furthermore, if you don't read it, then you have to assume that standard copyright law applies. If you assume that standard copyright law applies, you can't distribute it or modifications; thus, it will be impossible for you to violate the GPL.
I think it would be appropriate at this point to write a free client that talks with Bitkeeper, and for Linux developers to start switching to that from Bitkeeper. At that point, McVoy will face a hard choice: if he carries out these threats, he risks alienating the community that he hopes will market Bitkeeper for him.
To which McVoy response:
Our license states that you can't use BK if you are developing a similar system, i.e., a clone. Without using BK it's impossible to reverse engineer BK to create the clone. So your message seems to be saying "it would be appropriate at this point to violate the BitKeeper license in order to write a free client which talks with BitKeeper".
Well, I believe that only your free (as in beer) license says that. And that may very well be upheld by a court, because you're giving it away for no money. However, a similar provision in your for-money BitKeepr license might not be held up. Court's have ruled that -- despite what licenses say -- reverse engineering is acceptable for the purposes of developing products with interoperability. It is highly unlikely that McVoy's license on the pay-for version of BitKeeper would hold up, as that grants no extra rights not given by law, and in fact tries to deny rights to reverse-engineering given by law.
And it is precisely for this reason that RMS wants people not to use BitKeeper. Just as MS has taken measures to lock people into using MS Office, so too can McVoy take measures -- both technological and licensing-wise -- to lock people into using BitKeeper.
How about all of you take a much nicer tilt on this, and ask McVoy (who's already giveing you the software free) his price to GPL bitkeeper.
McVoy is giving the software away for free, as in no cost. Let's not confuse that with Free as in freedom.
As for buying out BitKeeper and GPL'ing it vs. developing a replacement, it's purely a strategic decision, based on -- I think -- two factors.
(1) Which will produce a GPL'ed product that Linus and other developers who like BitKeeper's features as fast as possible? Buying out BitKeeper may or may not be the choice. It might take longer to raise the money to buy out BitKeeper than it would to develop a Free alternative with comparable features that Linus and other's would switch to. There's no reason why both can't be done in parallel. Indeed, the best strategy is to do them in parallel, so that McVoy feels pressure -- once a Free alternative is developed that Linus and other's would switch to, the effort to buy out BitKeeper is off.
(2) Which will be cheaper? Financial considerations are important. It may or may not be cheaper to develop it ourselves.
If you are trying to copy BK, give it up. We'll simply follow in the footsteps of every other company faced with this sort of thing and change the protocol every 6 months. Since you would be chasing us you can never catch up. If you managed to stay close then we'd put digital signatures into the protocol to prevent your clone from interoperating with BK.
To which RMS response:
I think it would be appropriate at this point to write a free client that talks with Bitkeeper, and for Linux developers to start switching to that from Bitkeeper. At that point, McVoy will face a hard choice: if he carries out these threats, he risks alienating the community that he hopes will market Bitkeeper for him.
I really don't see how that response is raving and fanatical. RMS is simply suggesting that because of that possibility, we need to develop a Free client and convert to it. In as much as possible, it would talk with BitKeeper; but, if McVoy made license efforts to prevent that, then we'd just have to tough it out.
It's his (McVoy's) license, and he can do any damn thing he wants with it that will be enforced by the courts. Period. He can update it rapidly, to prevent interoperability, he can use digital watermarks to prevent interoperability, and do any number of other things to stiffle BK-compatible projects. Indeed, McVoy can partake on a scheme to try to lock developers into BitKeeper as much as he can possibly do using both his license and various schemes with the software.
And, quite frankly, I don't think RMS is challenging McVoy's right to do that. It's exactly because of McVoy's right to do that that RMS is worried. Because BK is proprietary, it is very possible that McVoy could pull such a move. And, ya know what, I don't think that RMS is saying that he can't do that, or that if he does we should violate his license. Of course, he might advocate that in so-far as the courts won't enforce McVoy's anti-reverse-engineering strategies, we should reverse engineer for compatability.
Now, whether or not RMS read back through the thread -- and whether or not/.ers did -- is irrelevant. Perhaps McVoy was only saying that as an example of a worst-case scenario, but the point is that he could do it. In that case, the only thing off the ball about RMS' comment is the "at this point". From the beginning, a Free client that talks with BitKeeper with similar capabilities should have been in development. I do agree with subsequent posters that a Free alternative with similar capabilities has to exist first; RMS is simply suggesting that we mobilize an effort to do so.
This is fucking bullshit. You put wife-beaters in jail for five years. Some fucking rapists and child-molesters don't even go to jail for 5 years.
According to democratic ideals, file-sharing is the most legitimate thing in the US. More legitimate than any politician, more legitimate than the RIAA, more legitimate than the church. That's because more people have expressed their support for file-sharing than for politicians, the RIAA, or the church.
Millions upon millions of Americans have engaged in file-sharing. The idea that over half of the US population should be accused of a felony and imprisoned for 5 years is absurd. It would be like making speeding a felony, punishable by up to 5 years.
The simple fact is, the act of file-sharing cannot be construed by any reasonable person to deserve 5 years in jail, or any jail-time. At most, a reasonable person could only deem that the penalty should be the proven cost to the copyright owner of that file-sharing. Anything beyond that is out of proportion.
The simple fact is, these politicians -- Conyers and Berman -- are anti-American. I say that because they support a policy which would hurt many Americans and which is not supported by the people. So much for Democrats being the protectors of personal freedom.
We should not concern ourselves with absurd arguments that the RIAA and musicians put up about the "wrongness" of file-sharing. Reasonable arguments can be made agaisnt that, and it is hardly something that is obviously wrong like rape and murder. Thus, since it is neither obviously wrong nor right, our only concern should be what policy benefits *us* the most, and to support that kind of policy. The proposed legislation does nothing to benefit the public, nor me in particular, nor the vast majority of individuals -- arguably, not even the musicians, but only the RIAA and music-labels; thus, the rational person must oppose it.
How about just giving them cash instead -- even depositing it into a 401k or Roth IRA -- and letting them decide how to invest it themsevles.
There is a rationale behind giving executives and others with enormous individual impact on the corporations a stock-position. It encourages them to act for the good of the company.
But normal employees -- just give them an equivalent amount of money. It is a bad idea for employees to be invested in their own companies stocks anyways, as they will make irrational and emotional decisions, holding onto the stock when they really should sell it.
You are so full of shit. Having never voted for a Democrat does not make one a Republican, you stupid dick. Every time Libertarian's have been available, I've voted for them. In other cases, I've voted for whatever individual I happen to agree with most.
As of yet, I haven't found a Democrat who I like in NY; and I'm not going to go out of my way searchinig because some asshole like you insists on labelling me a Republican simply because I don't like Democrats in NY. Face it, most of the Democrats with good name-recognition (aside from Lieberman, who isn't liberal enough to get the nomination) are assholes. Quomo and Hillary Clinton in NY are good examples. Quomo mismanaged NY during his entire term, and Hillary is some out-of-stater who talks down to all of NY like she's above everyone else. As I said, I do, however, like Boucher and Lieberman, but both of them are out-of-state.
Yes, I do support public schools, despite what the Libertarian party says. I think that every child has the right to receive an education; without an education, you have no liberty and no future. Furthermore, without public schools, I don't see the children of poor parents getting an education (a Libertarian fanatic in the other post I mentioned insisted on maintaining that a woman making 7k/yr could support herself and her child, including education). It's called thinking for yourself, something you are obviously incapable of doing.
It's very simple. I have more confidence in myself than anyone else. If I thought I was wrong, I would change my position. If I don't like someone because they seem like an asshole to me, they're probably not worth voting for. I'd rather have a politician with whom I disagree with on some issues but who is respectable (e.g., Collin Powell on affirmative action), than an asshole who I happen to agree with.
Again, because you are obviously extraordinarily stupid -- like most far right and left-wingers, who insist that Libertarians are immoral-liberals or fascist conservatives, respectively -- I will explain it to you very slowly. (1) For the most part (becuase I, not the LP, think for myself), I hold libertarian values, thus tend to agree with the Libertarian party. (2) Every time a Libertarian candidate has appeared on the ballot, I've voted for him. (3) Thus, I am a libertarian (moderate).
But, since you are obviously too stupid to understand that, I guess I'll have to use some definitions:
libertarian: 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. 2. One who believes in free will.
\Lib`er*ta"ri*an\ (-t[=a]"r[i^]*an), a. [See Liberty.] Pertaining to liberty, or to the doctrine of free will, as opposed to the doctrine of necessity.
\Lib`er*ta"ri*an\, n. One who holds to the doctrine of free will.
Libertarian n : someone who believes the doctrine of free will [ant: necessitarian]
Notice, that no where in there did they say anything about voting.
I did not contradict you because it's none of your fucking business who I've voted for.
You don't know shit about me, other than what I've said; which is, that I vote for Libertarians whenever available. If there's none available, and an inspiring Democrat like Rick Boucher comes along in NY, I'll vote for him. However, the only two Democrats who I have familiarity with in NY -- Quomo and H. Clinton -- are assholes. As for Republicans, the only one's I'm familiar with in NY are Pataki and Juliani, neither of who I've voted for and one of who I couldn't vote for or against.
You are obviously too stupid to understand basic political concepts. Voting for a Republican or a Democrat does not make one a Republican or a Democrat.
You are closest to the party that agrees with you on the most issues, and that's what you can call yourself, especially if you vote for that party whenever possible. If you are too fucking stupid to understand that, then maybe you should take a class in politics, so that you can drill it into your thick head that there are more positions and more parties than the narrow-minded Right/Left thinking would suggest.
Of course, this type of idiotic thinking is just what I'd expect from individuals like you, who are so obviously unacustomed to thinking. There even exist such idiots who don't believe in thinking in the Libertarian Party...BitKeeper, who recently accused me of being communistic because I support public schools, is one of them. But, at least his non-thinking ranting is good-natured and in the right sort of way. You're just another individual who is anti-freedom.
(1) You don't know who I've voted for in the past, present, or who I will vote for in the future (I don't even know that).
(2) Nothing in my posts indicated that I was more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate in general than a Republican candidate. All I said was that choosing between Bush and the Democratic candidates currently in contention, I'd choose Bush.
(3) Every time the option was available, I've voted Libertarian. No exceptions, 100%. That makes me a Libertarian. So go fuck yourself.
(4) Even those who don't vote for their party of choice -- mine is Libertarians -- but instead vote Democrat or Republican...that does not make them Democrats or Republicans. That means they've chosen a different strategy; probably, their strategy is to pick a side that they think has a reasonable shot of winning, and use their vote to minimize damage, rather than the long-term goal of getting the Libertarian party more recognition.
(5) Who I've voted for or haven't voted for is none of your fucking business. Again, go fuck yourself.
Apparently, there's something about multiples of 3 in TR that means they just have to suck and be buggy.
TR 3 sucked, and so does TR 6 (but TR 6 because of it's bugginess and controls).
The Tomb Raider games had exceptional gameplay, interesting stories, and usually average graphics (though the first one, and the fourth one, had exceptional graphics for their time). The problem has always been that they rush the game too much. There are too many bugs in all of the releases.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't see where mathematics teachers and science teachers are indoctrinating people. There is no politics taught in calculus and physics. So, that's 2 out of the 5 general subject areas where there's little room for that.
In regards to English and Social Sciences, I do agree with you. Liberal Presidents are almost always looked on favorably by history teachers, for example.
However, nothing guarantees that the teachers in private schools will be any better, though I do agree that the system will be more efficient (in that regards, we should put jury-duty on the market). Going from being taught that social programs are the greatest thing since sliced bread -- when, in fact, they are responsible for much economic hazard -- to being taught that sex before marriage is punishable by eternity in hell doesn't sound like much of an improvement to me.
And where do you get the right to brainwash someone elses kids into thinking exactly like YOU do?
If anyone has more rights to a kids education, its the kids parents. Not you.
Pure socialist thinking-- "we need centralized education so we can raise good non-thinking marxists".
No, if someone has more rights to the kids education, its the kids themselves. Kids are not the property of their parents. Parents have no rights regarding their children, only responsibilities to them. To say that parents have rights over their children is to say that they own their children -- slavery.
It is possible to teach facts without teaching opinion. Gravity is a fact. That the earth is round is a fact. The laws of economics are facts. And children can be exposed to ideas without being brainwashed -- encouraging the development of critical thinking. The job of a teacher is to teach facts and cultivate critical thinking regarding theories.
I'll check out the Murrey Rothberg link. If the economics are convincing, I'll change my views. However, if the economics are indeed convincing, they will have have to been more sound and thoroughly argued than what you've posted here, which is hardly convincing.
The reason I call you a socialist is because you are-- you just seem to call yourself a libertarian, and claim that the libertarian flash is belittleing-- even when you don't even seem to get it.
Socialistic thinking supports programs like social security, medicaid, medicare, unemployment, and many other things which I don't.
Irrelevant of whether or not I agree with the flash presentation -- most of which I do -- it is still belittling in the way in which it was presented.
It is very unclear how children's rights fit into this. Do parents have the right to deny their children medical care, because of "religious beliefs"? Why is it that just because your child happens to share 50% of your genes, you have the right to brainwash him or her into thinking exactly like you do, and prevent him or her from being exposed to alternate opinions, and forming opinions of his or her own? And what about prisons? How does putting people who rape and murder in jail square away with this?
SCO must be paying Rob Malda to constantly run stories about it, thus generating more publicity for SCO! It's all a vast evil right wing conspiracy! Bwuhahahahah.
SCO's been obfuscating this thing enough to confuse anyone and everyone...there are still many areas of this lawsuit the are confusing to me.
The thing at issue here is copyright. Derivatives don't apply. Only patents cover the actually method; copyrights only cover expressions.
Unless SCO has a patent on these things -- which they don't -- they can't prohibit others from using similar methods to achieve them. If they have a patent on an SMP-method, they can prohibit others from using the same method they use; they cannot, however, prevent people from using other SMP-methods.
If they simply have a copyright, then all that needs to be done is that the code needs to be removed and replaced. The act of re-coding it will most likely result in a different method anyways, safely putting it beyond patent-actionability.
The one-click lawsuit you mention between Amazon and Barnes and Noble is a patent lawsuit, not a copyright lawsuit.
I wasn't trying to turn it against you, though it did sound that say because I said, "there is no plausible way you..." when I should have said "there is no plausible way SCO..." I do realize you were just trying to explain a point that SCO may bring up in court (I was explaining why that point SCO will bring up probably won't work).
It grants rights not given by normal copyright law, upon certain conditions that you must agree to to get those rights. If you don't agree to thsoe conditions, or violate those conditions after agreeing to the GPL, then standard copyright law applies. That means that you've violated standard copyright law.
Very simply, there is no way that the GPL can be defeated in a court-room. But, if it is, that might be good. If the GPL is invalidated, then ALL EULAs would necessarily be invalidated, as they take away rights granted by standard copyright law.
They distributed a GNU/Linux distribution. They had the source for that distribution offered until a few weeks after they launched the lawsuit. There is no plausible way that you can say that it was released by one renegade employee without authority.
If they can prove that Linux infringes upon SysV code that they claim to own, then that code will be removed from Linux and replaced. Period. There will be no issue of charging for it's use. They certainly can't charge for it's use now, as they haven't even shown what code is allegedly infringing. If you tell someone their infringing your copyright, but don't give them the information to allow them to stop infringing, then any legal case you have will go nowhere.
If there is any validity to their claims, the offending code will be expunged from Linux and replaced, which will conclusively end the matter.
In any event, they already GPL'ed all of their code by releasing a GNU/Linux distribution.
He *doesn't* have to provide you with a free copy of it to reverse engineer it. However, he *is* providing you with a free copy of it. It is possible -- but not likely -- that the law would grant you the right to reverse engineer the version you obtained for free.
He has a good argument that he's giving you rights not granted by standard copyright law (to obtain and distribute the binaries free of charge), upon the condition that you don't reverse engineer it.
However, there is no such argument for if you actually pay for it. And it is arguable that the entire group of developers developing a replacement that plays with BK could buy it as a group (though only use it one at a time).
Mis-informed comments again. The GPL grants the user rights and freedoms not granted under copyright law. The EULA takes away rights and freedoms granted under copyright law. You don't have to accept the GPL to use GPL'ed software; you do have to accept EULA's.
Regarding BSD vs. GPL, it is true that the BSD grants absolute freedom. But is that what we really want? Or do we just want as much freedom as possible without giving other's the power to restrict other's freedom using our hard work? The BSD allows proprietary developers to incorporate the work of FS developers while contributing nothing back, allows them to use BSD'ed code to write new code that is under a license that restricts user-freedoms in draconian fashion. The GPL doesn't allow that.
The BSD grants everyone using BSD'd code near-absolute freedom (the original code must still be GPL'ed and credit must be given). This means that they have the freedom to restrict other's freedom. The GPL, forseeing this problem, specifically restricts anyone from denying the freedoms mentioned in the GPL.
If you don't read (and thus don't agree to) the GPL, then standard copyright law applies to you with regard to using GPL'ed software. You can use it however you want for your own personal use, but you can't distribute the code or modified versions of it, or the binaries.
The GPL only grants extra rights that are *not* granted to you by copyright law. Thus, it is most definately enforcible. Furthermore, if you don't read it, then you have to assume that standard copyright law applies. If you assume that standard copyright law applies, you can't distribute it or modifications; thus, it will be impossible for you to violate the GPL.
To which McVoy response:
Well, I believe that only your free (as in beer) license says that. And that may very well be upheld by a court, because you're giving it away for no money. However, a similar provision in your for-money BitKeepr license might not be held up. Court's have ruled that -- despite what licenses say -- reverse engineering is acceptable for the purposes of developing products with interoperability. It is highly unlikely that McVoy's license on the pay-for version of BitKeeper would hold up, as that grants no extra rights not given by law, and in fact tries to deny rights to reverse-engineering given by law.
And it is precisely for this reason that RMS wants people not to use BitKeeper. Just as MS has taken measures to lock people into using MS Office, so too can McVoy take measures -- both technological and licensing-wise -- to lock people into using BitKeeper.
How about all of you take a much nicer tilt on this, and ask McVoy (who's already giveing you the software free) his price to GPL bitkeeper.
McVoy is giving the software away for free, as in no cost. Let's not confuse that with Free as in freedom.
As for buying out BitKeeper and GPL'ing it vs. developing a replacement, it's purely a strategic decision, based on -- I think -- two factors.
(1) Which will produce a GPL'ed product that Linus and other developers who like BitKeeper's features as fast as possible? Buying out BitKeeper may or may not be the choice. It might take longer to raise the money to buy out BitKeeper than it would to develop a Free alternative with comparable features that Linus and other's would switch to. There's no reason why both can't be done in parallel. Indeed, the best strategy is to do them in parallel, so that McVoy feels pressure -- once a Free alternative is developed that Linus and other's would switch to, the effort to buy out BitKeeper is off.
(2) Which will be cheaper? Financial considerations are important. It may or may not be cheaper to develop it ourselves.
It's his (McVoy's) license, and he can do any damn thing he wants with it that will be enforced by the courts. Period. He can update it rapidly, to prevent interoperability, he can use digital watermarks to prevent interoperability, and do any number of other things to stiffle BK-compatible projects. Indeed, McVoy can partake on a scheme to try to lock developers into BitKeeper as much as he can possibly do using both his license and various schemes with the software.
And, quite frankly, I don't think RMS is challenging McVoy's right to do that. It's exactly because of McVoy's right to do that that RMS is worried. Because BK is proprietary, it is very possible that McVoy could pull such a move. And, ya know what, I don't think that RMS is saying that he can't do that, or that if he does we should violate his license. Of course, he might advocate that in so-far as the courts won't enforce McVoy's anti-reverse-engineering strategies, we should reverse engineer for compatability.
Now, whether or not RMS read back through the thread -- and whether or not /.ers did -- is irrelevant. Perhaps McVoy was only saying that as an example of a worst-case scenario, but the point is that he could do it. In that case, the only thing off the ball about RMS' comment is the "at this point". From the beginning, a Free client that talks with BitKeeper with similar capabilities should have been in development. I do agree with subsequent posters that a Free alternative with similar capabilities has to exist first; RMS is simply suggesting that we mobilize an effort to do so.
Is non-sense. Of course, HIV does not equal AIDS. HIV causes AIDS. AIDS can also have other causes, but HIV is the primary cause.
To suggest that millions of scientists around the world are in on a government scam to ??discourage homosexual sex?? is bullshit.
It goes something like this:
1. Release unsubstantiated statement that for a prohibitive cost, you can recover cross-shredded documents.
2. Tell people that burning documents -- while also inconvenient -- doesn't always work either.
3. Hey, wanna buy a nuclear-reactor to destroy your documents?
This is fucking bullshit. You put wife-beaters in jail for five years. Some fucking rapists and child-molesters don't even go to jail for 5 years.
According to democratic ideals, file-sharing is the most legitimate thing in the US. More legitimate than any politician, more legitimate than the RIAA, more legitimate than the church. That's because more people have expressed their support for file-sharing than for politicians, the RIAA, or the church.
Millions upon millions of Americans have engaged in file-sharing. The idea that over half of the US population should be accused of a felony and imprisoned for 5 years is absurd. It would be like making speeding a felony, punishable by up to 5 years.
The simple fact is, the act of file-sharing cannot be construed by any reasonable person to deserve 5 years in jail, or any jail-time. At most, a reasonable person could only deem that the penalty should be the proven cost to the copyright owner of that file-sharing. Anything beyond that is out of proportion.
The simple fact is, these politicians -- Conyers and Berman -- are anti-American. I say that because they support a policy which would hurt many Americans and which is not supported by the people. So much for Democrats being the protectors of personal freedom.
We should not concern ourselves with absurd arguments that the RIAA and musicians put up about the "wrongness" of file-sharing. Reasonable arguments can be made agaisnt that, and it is hardly something that is obviously wrong like rape and murder. Thus, since it is neither obviously wrong nor right, our only concern should be what policy benefits *us* the most, and to support that kind of policy. The proposed legislation does nothing to benefit the public, nor me in particular, nor the vast majority of individuals -- arguably, not even the musicians, but only the RIAA and music-labels; thus, the rational person must oppose it.
How about just giving them cash instead -- even depositing it into a 401k or Roth IRA -- and letting them decide how to invest it themsevles.
There is a rationale behind giving executives and others with enormous individual impact on the corporations a stock-position. It encourages them to act for the good of the company.
But normal employees -- just give them an equivalent amount of money. It is a bad idea for employees to be invested in their own companies stocks anyways, as they will make irrational and emotional decisions, holding onto the stock when they really should sell it.
As of yet, I haven't found a Democrat who I like in NY; and I'm not going to go out of my way searchinig because some asshole like you insists on labelling me a Republican simply because I don't like Democrats in NY. Face it, most of the Democrats with good name-recognition (aside from Lieberman, who isn't liberal enough to get the nomination) are assholes. Quomo and Hillary Clinton in NY are good examples. Quomo mismanaged NY during his entire term, and Hillary is some out-of-stater who talks down to all of NY like she's above everyone else. As I said, I do, however, like Boucher and Lieberman, but both of them are out-of-state.
Yes, I do support public schools, despite what the Libertarian party says. I think that every child has the right to receive an education; without an education, you have no liberty and no future. Furthermore, without public schools, I don't see the children of poor parents getting an education (a Libertarian fanatic in the other post I mentioned insisted on maintaining that a woman making 7k/yr could support herself and her child, including education). It's called thinking for yourself, something you are obviously incapable of doing.
It's very simple. I have more confidence in myself than anyone else. If I thought I was wrong, I would change my position. If I don't like someone because they seem like an asshole to me, they're probably not worth voting for. I'd rather have a politician with whom I disagree with on some issues but who is respectable (e.g., Collin Powell on affirmative action), than an asshole who I happen to agree with.
Again, because you are obviously extraordinarily stupid -- like most far right and left-wingers, who insist that Libertarians are immoral-liberals or fascist conservatives, respectively -- I will explain it to you very slowly. (1) For the most part (becuase I, not the LP, think for myself), I hold libertarian values, thus tend to agree with the Libertarian party. (2) Every time a Libertarian candidate has appeared on the ballot, I've voted for him. (3) Thus, I am a libertarian (moderate).
But, since you are obviously too stupid to understand that, I guess I'll have to use some definitions:
Notice, that no where in there did they say anything about voting.
Having used FreeNet, the fact of the matter is that downloads are in fact very fast, once established.
Looking through the network and making initial connections is what is slow. Once that's down, downloads are very fast.
I did not contradict you because it's none of your fucking business who I've voted for.
You don't know shit about me, other than what I've said; which is, that I vote for Libertarians whenever available. If there's none available, and an inspiring Democrat like Rick Boucher comes along in NY, I'll vote for him. However, the only two Democrats who I have familiarity with in NY -- Quomo and H. Clinton -- are assholes. As for Republicans, the only one's I'm familiar with in NY are Pataki and Juliani, neither of who I've voted for and one of who I couldn't vote for or against.
You are obviously too stupid to understand basic political concepts. Voting for a Republican or a Democrat does not make one a Republican or a Democrat.
You are closest to the party that agrees with you on the most issues, and that's what you can call yourself, especially if you vote for that party whenever possible. If you are too fucking stupid to understand that, then maybe you should take a class in politics, so that you can drill it into your thick head that there are more positions and more parties than the narrow-minded Right/Left thinking would suggest.
Of course, this type of idiotic thinking is just what I'd expect from individuals like you, who are so obviously unacustomed to thinking. There even exist such idiots who don't believe in thinking in the Libertarian Party...BitKeeper, who recently accused me of being communistic because I support public schools, is one of them. But, at least his non-thinking ranting is good-natured and in the right sort of way. You're just another individual who is anti-freedom.
and I normally don't call people that.
(1) You don't know who I've voted for in the past, present, or who I will vote for in the future (I don't even know that).
(2) Nothing in my posts indicated that I was more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate in general than a Republican candidate. All I said was that choosing between Bush and the Democratic candidates currently in contention, I'd choose Bush.
(3) Every time the option was available, I've voted Libertarian. No exceptions, 100%. That makes me a Libertarian. So go fuck yourself.
(4) Even those who don't vote for their party of choice -- mine is Libertarians -- but instead vote Democrat or Republican...that does not make them Democrats or Republicans. That means they've chosen a different strategy; probably, their strategy is to pick a side that they think has a reasonable shot of winning, and use their vote to minimize damage, rather than the long-term goal of getting the Libertarian party more recognition.
(5) Who I've voted for or haven't voted for is none of your fucking business. Again, go fuck yourself.
Apparently, there's something about multiples of 3 in TR that means they just have to suck and be buggy.
TR 3 sucked, and so does TR 6 (but TR 6 because of it's bugginess and controls).
The Tomb Raider games had exceptional gameplay, interesting stories, and usually average graphics (though the first one, and the fourth one, had exceptional graphics for their time). The problem has always been that they rush the game too much. There are too many bugs in all of the releases.