1) True, Clinton is not running today. But those that said his lack of service did not matter are saying GWB's lack of service does. I have more against the people who support Kerry than Kerry himself.
It's not lack of service, it's aborted service. It's the AWOL, stupid. Clinton opposed the Vietnam war and got out of it, which is consistent. Bush supported the war and weaseled out of fulfilling his obligations.
2) Yes, Clinton sent soldiers to their deaths to dispose of Slobodon Millosovich in Bosnia (forgive an misspellings). What did Slobo do to make that war justified that Saddam didn't do? We had no UN resolution agains Bosnia, much less the 17 that were violated by Iraq. Over a million children did not die in Bosnia, as they did in Iraq. Yet, Clinton was given a pass while Bush is called Hitler. Why?
This is so easy. Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to war, and did not divert resources from a more important war to launch a war of choice.
Oh yes, we had zero combat deaths and a clear exit strategy in Kosovo. I'd say Clinton used American military power wisely and judiciously.
Most Americans supported the goal of eliminating Saddam but opposed the way it was done and the priorities (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) it displaced.
3) Trust me, if Bush were AWOL, he would have been tossed out on his ass.
There's some evidence that he was, but that strings were pulled to reverse it. See the link in the parent post.
I don't know what dream world you live in, but in this world the son of Nixon's UN Ambassador sure as hell gets special treatment even if he isn't the grandson of a Senator and heir apparent to one of the most powerful families in the nation.
He met his obligation. Even that partisan site you posted says, "substitute training for a missed UTA was performed, it was associated with a specific required UTA period."
Funny how your word for "containing facts that disprove my argument" is "partisan".
The point is that what little make-up service Bush performed did not cover the time period everyone is talking about (May-September 1972)- it covered a *different* period.
I could even put a slanted Micheal Moore type spin on it and say, "While Kerry spent a whole 4 months in Vietnam defending the Vietnamese and 2 years protesting America, GWB was actually defending America and Americans from the threat of Soviet bombers here in the US."
Yes, in Alabama playing volleyball with ambitious secretaries. As an administrative officer once he unilaterally decided to stop flying without permission, Bush's keen filing skills kept us safe from the red menace on the days he felt like showing up.
1. Is not running for office today 2. Did not send 900+ American soldiers to their deaths 3. May have avoided service but did not shirk it upon having accepted it.
Vietnam sucked, there were some very good reasons to want to avoid going. No one cares too much that Bush didn't go to Vietnam. They do care that he couldn't even be bothered to show up for his guard service.
Incidentally - who turned the giant troll loose in the original post? Kerry wants the states to decide on Gay Marriage and is pretty strongly against offshoring- the article linked from the post just says that people who like to offshore jobs are supporting Kerry *despite* the fact that he opposes offshoring.
Permitting voters to file absentee ballots/etc. has the same problem. So if there's going to be coercion, it can already happen imperceptibly anyway.
Furthermore, even if you can't prove who you voted for, you can prove that you voted so that if there's an undercount of votes a valid series of receipts will prove it.
More importantly, there are schemes that allow you to take an encrypted receipt with you that can only display your vote if you have the other half of the key- so you can confirm your vote while at the machine.
Preventing vote coercion is an admirable goal, but the advent of computerized voting machines is making the risks of not printing these receipts even greater than the risk of printing them.
A lot of other governments are moving away from Microsoft b/c they're pretty sure we're using Windows to spy on them.
Unfortunately, you can't guarantee that someone looking to subvert windows in a subtle way won't be hired by (or more interestingly, license their code to) Microsoft- so with closed source you basically get the worst of all possible worlds.
Yes, but licenses don't have things, they ALLOW things. The GPL allows less restrictions than BSD.
The author of the BSD piece still have the piece.
Yes, because code never has to adjust to new hardware or software technologies, it's frozen in time right? Stop being so obtuse. As you point out, the original software is free forever in both cases - the only difference is in whether you can make freedom-restricting derivative works or not.
There are two ways that the BSD license opens software to restriction over time.
First, when the software evolves, as it must to remain relevant to changing hardware/software environments, bad actors can "embrace and extend" with patent attacks or simply by the creation of a de facto proprietary standard that renders the free branch of the code worthless.
Second, the proprietary extension is itself a restriction on the freedom of others that the GPL would have prevented. Net freedom gain for GPL.
Finally, your 'math' is worthy of 1984. Why is it that the GPL restriction applies to everyone but the proprietary extensions only get counted once each? Answer me that.
You're right, but sometimes it's important to express the degree of frustration you're feeling.
Regarding FUD, it's not so. BSD code can be embraced and extended by patent attacks, or the free branch can be made irrelevant by the creation of a well-funded de facto standard based on a proprietary extension. This is true regardless of the interest level of the community. Of course the original code is still available, but as you well know software is constantly evolving as hardware and software technology changes.
The claim that "my point is true, by definition" really begs the question, doesn't it? We're obviously having a disagreement about how to measure freedom in the first place.
The GPL argument is that by pruning the bad "freedoms" (proprietary embrace and extend) we can have more of the good freedoms (sharing, reuse, standards), and that the freedom to restrict freedom is not really a "freedom" at all- it is self defeating in terms of net freedom because every exercise of this freedom inherently restricts the freedom of another to do precisely the same thing.
you use one of the possible consequences of the BSD license as it's primary goal.
It's the only way in which bsd licensed software is meaningfully different from gpl, hence it's the crux of the matter.
draw an horizontal axis with lockdown on the left and freedom on the right (kinda stupid you have to admit)
Yep, you nailed it - pretty stupid.
Your graph doesn't make sense primarily because there's more than one person in the world. To determine which license yields less net restrictions you have to take into account not just the restrictions imposed by the license itself, but what restrictions the license allows.
The GPL allows one "restriction" with a special recursive property- it's a restriction against restrictions. There are three possible cases:
1. No one wanted to further restrict the software- the licenses are effectively the same 2. One person wanted to make a restrictive extension to the software- In GPL land the gpl makes one restriction, in BSD land the person who writes the restrictive extension makes one restriction. We're tied 1-1. 3. 2 or more people want to make restrictive extensions. Now the GPL is a net reduction in restrictions of freedom.
This math is irrefutable and you know it. Quit dicking around.
Code migrates from the "please exploit me proprietary software companies" pool to the "please don't exploit me without sharing" pool but not back. Hm, fancy that.
Annie, get your gun. They're trying to take away our freedom to have proprietary extensions written to our software! The dirty, filthy, rotten, freedom-hating COMMIES!
You can have my right to have someone else add proprietary extensions to my own software when you pry it from my cold, dead, carpal tunnels.
If you want to control what happens to your code, you put restrictions to it. That removes freedom. Period. Get over it.
At the risk of being modded down (and I surely will be) FUCK you. I will not get over it. I don't want to control code that I license under the GPL - I want to make sure NO ONE controls it. I am really tired of hearing this stupid smear. It's exactly equivalent logically to saying "if you want true freedom, you've got to let someone else be a tyrant or else you're restricting their freedom."
If you want control over your code, choose a proprietary license. If you want someone else to eventually control your code, choose BSD. If you want no one to control your code ever, choose GPL.
perhaps someday there will be a sufficiently large market to support a service industry supporting free software drivers and you'll have someone to blame if you need to. Until then we're forced to choose between a company's desire to protect its reputation and the ability to use free software thereby avoiding lockin/no source code/etc. I understand we choose different sides of this divide, but I hope one day we won't have to choose.
My Delta 1010 works just fine, as does my Turtle Beach USB MIDI adapter.
Your Echo Darla, Gina, Layla or RME Hamerfall card would be supported by ALSA as well, among others. Linux audio may have issues, but a lack of professional sound cards that work is not one of them.
I understand that this was released under a license reminiscent of the KWPL, better known as the Kjell Woodson Public License. Nice to see a little more truth in advertising!
I think that those sources are bunk, but that's neither here nor there.
Moore has taken the criticism to heart and made a much tighter film. He mostly gets out of the way and lets the people he interviews/documents he shows speak for themselves.
If you want to criticize Wrath of Khan, fine but don't drag Star Trek the Motion Picture into it. Very different movies.
Well that's kind of my point - it's portable to... other open platforms.
It may not be easy, but it's both legally and technically possible, and in most cases fairly easy. Witness all the apps that have been ported to OS X since it has an open core and supports the X protocol. Open standards=open platforms=portability.
Of course there will be some counterexamples, but closed platforms are by definition barriers to portability.
Slashdot Mirror
1) True, Clinton is not running today. But those that said his lack of service did not matter are saying GWB's lack of service does. I have more against the people who support Kerry than Kerry himself.
It's not lack of service, it's aborted service. It's the AWOL, stupid. Clinton opposed the Vietnam war and got out of it, which is consistent. Bush supported the war and weaseled out of fulfilling his obligations.
2) Yes, Clinton sent soldiers to their deaths to dispose of Slobodon Millosovich in Bosnia (forgive an misspellings). What did Slobo do to make that war justified that Saddam didn't do? We had no UN resolution agains Bosnia, much less the 17 that were violated by Iraq. Over a million children did not die in Bosnia, as they did in Iraq. Yet, Clinton was given a pass while Bush is called Hitler. Why?
This is so easy. Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to war, and did not divert resources from a more important war to launch a war of choice.
Oh yes, we had zero combat deaths and a clear exit strategy in Kosovo. I'd say Clinton used American military power wisely and judiciously.
Most Americans supported the goal of eliminating Saddam but opposed the way it was done and the priorities (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) it displaced.
3) Trust me, if Bush were AWOL, he would have been tossed out on his ass.
There's some evidence that he was, but that strings were pulled to reverse it. See the link in the parent post.
I don't know what dream world you live in, but in this world the son of Nixon's UN Ambassador sure as hell gets special treatment even if he isn't the grandson of a Senator and heir apparent to one of the most powerful families in the nation.
He met his obligation. Even that partisan site you posted says, "substitute training for a missed UTA was performed, it was associated with a specific required UTA period."
Funny how your word for "containing facts that disprove my argument" is "partisan".
The point is that what little make-up service Bush performed did not cover the time period everyone is talking about (May-September 1972)- it covered a *different* period.
I could even put a slanted Micheal Moore type spin on it and say, "While Kerry spent a whole 4 months in Vietnam defending the Vietnamese and 2 years protesting America, GWB was actually defending America and Americans from the threat of Soviet bombers here in the US."
Yes, in Alabama playing volleyball with ambitious secretaries. As an administrative officer once he unilaterally decided to stop flying without permission, Bush's keen filing skills kept us safe from the red menace on the days he felt like showing up.
Clinton
1. Is not running for office today
2. Did not send 900+ American soldiers to their deaths
3. May have avoided service but did not shirk it upon having accepted it.
Vietnam sucked, there were some very good reasons to want to avoid going. No one cares too much that Bush didn't go to Vietnam. They do care that he couldn't even be bothered to show up for his guard service.
Avoiding a misguided war is one thing. Going AWOL from service you took an oath to complete is quite another.
Incidentally - who turned the giant troll loose in the original post? Kerry wants the states to decide on Gay Marriage and is pretty strongly against offshoring- the article linked from the post just says that people who like to offshore jobs are supporting Kerry *despite* the fact that he opposes offshoring.
I gave it a try, but drawing frames for DVD playback was too slow, to say nothing of the CSS decryption algorithm you have to use with that thing.
I can't believe no one has mentioned petabox yet. They cite as a benefit:
* Inexpensive storage
Granted it may be a little more than you had in mind...
Permitting voters to file absentee ballots/etc. has the same problem. So if there's going to be coercion, it can already happen imperceptibly anyway.
Furthermore, even if you can't prove who you voted for, you can prove that you voted so that if there's an undercount of votes a valid series of receipts will prove it.
More importantly, there are schemes that allow you to take an encrypted receipt with you that can only display your vote if you have the other half of the key- so you can confirm your vote while at the machine.
Preventing vote coercion is an admirable goal, but the advent of computerized voting machines is making the risks of not printing these receipts even greater than the risk of printing them.
A lot of other governments are moving away from Microsoft b/c they're pretty sure we're using Windows to spy on them.
Unfortunately, you can't guarantee that someone looking to subvert windows in a subtle way won't be hired by (or more interestingly, license their code to) Microsoft- so with closed source you basically get the worst of all possible worlds.
The BSD license doesn't have any restrictions.
Yes, but licenses don't have things, they ALLOW things. The GPL allows less restrictions than BSD.
The author of the BSD piece still have the piece.
Yes, because code never has to adjust to new hardware or software technologies, it's frozen in time right? Stop being so obtuse. As you point out, the original software is free forever in both cases - the only difference is in whether you can make freedom-restricting derivative works or not.
There are two ways that the BSD license opens software to restriction over time.
First, when the software evolves, as it must to remain relevant to changing hardware/software environments, bad actors can "embrace and extend" with patent attacks or simply by the creation of a de facto proprietary standard that renders the free branch of the code worthless.
Second, the proprietary extension is itself a restriction on the freedom of others that the GPL would have prevented. Net freedom gain for GPL.
Finally, your 'math' is worthy of 1984. Why is it that the GPL restriction applies to everyone but the proprietary extensions only get counted once each? Answer me that.
You're right, but sometimes it's important to express the degree of frustration you're feeling.
Regarding FUD, it's not so. BSD code can be embraced and extended by patent attacks, or the free branch can be made irrelevant by the creation of a well-funded de facto standard based on a proprietary extension. This is true regardless of the interest level of the community. Of course the original code is still available, but as you well know software is constantly evolving as hardware and software technology changes.
The claim that "my point is true, by definition" really begs the question, doesn't it? We're obviously having a disagreement about how to measure freedom in the first place.
The GPL argument is that by pruning the bad "freedoms" (proprietary embrace and extend) we can have more of the good freedoms (sharing, reuse, standards), and that the freedom to restrict freedom is not really a "freedom" at all- it is self defeating in terms of net freedom because every exercise of this freedom inherently restricts the freedom of another to do precisely the same thing.
No control is a form of control. Oooooookay.
you use one of the possible consequences of the BSD license as it's primary goal.
It's the only way in which bsd licensed software is meaningfully different from gpl, hence it's the crux of the matter.
draw an horizontal axis with lockdown on the left and freedom on the right (kinda stupid you have to admit)
Yep, you nailed it - pretty stupid.
Your graph doesn't make sense primarily because there's more than one person in the world. To determine which license yields less net restrictions you have to take into account not just the restrictions imposed by the license itself, but what restrictions the license allows.
The GPL allows one "restriction" with a special recursive property- it's a restriction against restrictions. There are three possible cases:
1. No one wanted to further restrict the software- the licenses are effectively the same
2. One person wanted to make a restrictive extension to the software- In GPL land the gpl makes one restriction, in BSD land the person who writes the restrictive extension makes one restriction. We're tied 1-1.
3. 2 or more people want to make restrictive extensions. Now the GPL is a net reduction in restrictions of freedom.
This math is irrefutable and you know it. Quit dicking around.
Code migrates from the "please exploit me proprietary software companies" pool to the "please don't exploit me without sharing" pool but not back. Hm, fancy that.
Annie, get your gun. They're trying to take away our freedom to have proprietary extensions written to our software! The dirty, filthy, rotten, freedom-hating COMMIES!
You can have my right to have someone else add proprietary extensions to my own software when you pry it from my cold, dead, carpal tunnels.
If you want to control what happens to your code, you put restrictions to it. That removes freedom. Period. Get over it.
At the risk of being modded down (and I surely will be) FUCK you. I will not get over it. I don't want to control code that I license under the GPL - I want to make sure NO ONE controls it. I am really tired of hearing this stupid smear. It's exactly equivalent logically to saying "if you want true freedom, you've got to let someone else be a tyrant or else you're restricting their freedom."
If you want control over your code, choose a proprietary license. If you want someone else to eventually control your code, choose BSD. If you want no one to control your code ever, choose GPL.
1. The condition of being free of restraints.
GPL loses here, I am restrained from using it in non-open projects.
Again, this is sophistry. The only thing you're restrained from doing is restraining others, resulting in a net REDUCTION in restraints.
It's the same theory that allows free societies to have prisons- you can't have freedom unless you deal with those who would take it away from you.
Think! You're exercising a USA Today reading level on a Tolstoy-level problem.
It's GPL'd - write your own manual or use the source. Or use the slightly scrambled manual they provide.
I use Ardour, and I haven't paid for the manual (yet).
perhaps someday there will be a sufficiently large market to support a service industry supporting free software drivers and you'll have someone to blame if you need to. Until then we're forced to choose between a company's desire to protect its reputation and the ability to use free software thereby avoiding lockin/no source code/etc. I understand we choose different sides of this divide, but I hope one day we won't have to choose.
My Delta 1010 works just fine, as does my Turtle Beach USB MIDI adapter.
Your Echo Darla, Gina, Layla or RME Hamerfall card would be supported by ALSA as well, among others. Linux audio may have issues, but a lack of professional sound cards that work is not one of them.
No.
Privacy's gone. Abandon the flank and start insisting on reciprocal surveillance. You have no other choice.
I'm dead serious.
6. Be accused by the oil companies and their politicians' cronies of being a fat slob whose filmmaking reminds them of Leni Riefenstahl.
7. they mock you
8. they fight you
9. you win
Correction - that's "Wooding", not "Woodson". Sorry Kjell!
I understand that this was released under a license reminiscent of the KWPL, better known as the Kjell Woodson Public License. Nice to see a little more truth in advertising!
"There will always violence and suffering in the world, and Michael Moore will always be there to make a buck off of it."
Right along with Halliburton, the Carlyle group and their Saudi investors!
Remember kids, it's not the corporation's fault, it's the whistleblowers who are to blame.
I think that those sources are bunk, but that's neither here nor there.
Moore has taken the criticism to heart and made a much tighter film. He mostly gets out of the way and lets the people he interviews/documents he shows speak for themselves.
If you want to criticize Wrath of Khan, fine but don't drag Star Trek the Motion Picture into it. Very different movies.
Well, here's a few:
http://www.newbreedsoftware.com/beos/
Granted I think these were all ported to Windows as well, but that's because... they used SDL (an open platform). Hurray!
Well that's kind of my point - it's portable to... other open platforms.
It may not be easy, but it's both legally and technically possible, and in most cases fairly easy. Witness all the apps that have been ported to OS X since it has an open core and supports the X protocol. Open standards=open platforms=portability.
Of course there will be some counterexamples, but closed platforms are by definition barriers to portability.
Portability is for rafts and other open platforms.
Write to an open platform and your software is portable by definition, because the platform itself is portable.