Pretty much none, just law enforcement and courts. Of course that will be a lot cheaper once we legalize all the things that the busibody moral crusaders banned.
Buying education is definitely investing.
If it's good enough for the state to invest in, it's good enough for individuals to invest in. If education is such a good way to spend money, then end all government spending on it, and people will naturally spend their money on it anyway, no coersion at gunpoint involved.
You do realize you already have the fruits of your labours 'stolen' to pay subsidies for inefficient farmers, defence contractors and all the other pork-barrel stuff?
Yes, and it bothers me. I always vote Libertarian.
Also, by your logic there should probably be no state funded education at all in the US
Correct. There's no need to subsidize an industry there is obviously a high demand for.
Sounds like you'd rather live in a 3rd world shit-heap country with no state services at all apart from possibly a big fat military.
I'd rather return economically to era of the US where we revolutionized the world, before the socialists started polluting the economy with their farm subsidies, defence contractors, and welfare programs.
What do you mean "bring back"? Half the "blogs" I got to are a tiny column down the center of the screen. Even major sites like CNN are apparently designed for 1024 or something, because there's a large white bar on the right side.
If those lawsuits are successful, it opens up SPEWS to be shut down too, because their goal is to label innocent bystanders as associated with spammers.
Libertarianism isn't a one-issue platform, not at all. Neither is the green platform, though it may seem like it to the uninitiated (greens are somewhat socialist, in addition to the environmentalist stuff).
For some reason the US never fully catched on to that.
Well there's just that little thing about recognizing the inherent human right to not have the fruits of your labor stolen, and the freedom of self-determination.
If we wanted to live in socialism, we'd move to russia. Keep your "good ideas" away from my freedom.
That's not necessarily the case. Yes it's a factor. But SCO might be worth $2 a share on the off chance that IBM just says "fuck it" and announces a tender offer to get rid of the SCO problem once and for all.
Keep in mind SCO does in fact own the rights to the UNIX source code. That's worth something after all.
If you include solar energy in the input side, you can never even break even. Laws of thermodynamics and such. The only incoming energy in the system is solar, the measure is how efficiently the system captures that solar energy into something transportable and usable.
Make sure to read the bug report about this before you go into it.
The arrogance of the mozilla devs regarding this issue makes it likely your patch would be for naught.
BTW - It does it automatically, without warning or asking you if you want to save the info. After my fresh install I said "sure ok lets try this form autocomplete" the first time I went on Google or something. Then later on I was typing in my credit card number on some site and Firefox popped a drop down showing my entire credit card number. I'm a programmer. If I got burned by it imagine how Joe Schmoe would handle it.
Also you can't ignore public terminals. Yes in theory people wouldn't enter such things on public terminals, and the people setting them up would disable all that stuff, or wipe the user data every log out.
But insecure-by-default is something that software in general is moving away from strongly. Trusting the end user to turn off dangerous options is not accepted as best practice anymore.
Ignoring bug reports for 5+ years is a serious issue. Especially when it's something like "Mozilla and Firefox store your credit card numbers in plaintext by default"
There's no arm twisting. No one is forced to use GPLed software. No GPL software developer is forced to use GPLv3. If embedded manufacturers would like to continue using only GPLv2 software, they are free to do so.
If GPL software developers would like to prevent manufacturers from taking away the rights of users to modify and redistribute the software, they they should use GPLv3. I suspect many will. Some won't. Notably, Linux will never be GPLv3, it can't be even if Linus wanted it to be. There's too much GPLv2 only code in it.
Linus shouldn't act like something has changed. The core value of the GPL has always been that you must not restrict the rights of the people you distribute GPL software to.
It's part of the reason BSD is a fractured mess that nearly no one uses, and Linux is so huge. With GPL you aren't going to be competing against heavily forked proprietary versions that blow the open source version out of the water (see pspice/cadence if you need an example). If Linux had been under a license that allowed forks that users can't modify or redistribute, it would be no better than the BSD license.
Linus's whole point is that the GPL 3 dictates technical details of projects that use it, where V2 didn't.
GPLv2 dictated technical details that affected the next user's right to modify the software. For example, you couldn't link a modified GPL program with a closed source library, since that would hamper the ability to modify the software.
The spirit of the GPL has not changed. The "political goal" is to ensure that all downsteam users that wind up using GPL software have the same rights to modify and distribute the software that earlier users had. That has not changed. It's only closing a loophole that some companies can use to take away those rights without violating the letter of the GPL.
I had a hard time wording it in a meaningful way, but you get my point. I'm not one of those whackos that things 3 milligauss is a "safe limit" for magnetic fields, but it's hard to say that electric and magnetic fields have no potential effects (gah punny).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an objectivist, and I'm an agnostic. I'm not sure what you are going on about.
what services should the state offer
Pretty much none, just law enforcement and courts. Of course that will be a lot cheaper once we legalize all the things that the busibody moral crusaders banned.
Buying education is definitely investing.
If it's good enough for the state to invest in, it's good enough for individuals to invest in. If education is such a good way to spend money, then end all government spending on it, and people will naturally spend their money on it anyway, no coersion at gunpoint involved.
You do realize you already have the fruits of your labours 'stolen' to pay subsidies for inefficient farmers, defence contractors and all the other pork-barrel stuff?
Yes, and it bothers me. I always vote Libertarian.
Also, by your logic there should probably be no state funded education at all in the US
Correct. There's no need to subsidize an industry there is obviously a high demand for.
Sounds like you'd rather live in a 3rd world shit-heap country with no state services at all apart from possibly a big fat military.
I'd rather return economically to era of the US where we revolutionized the world, before the socialists started polluting the economy with their farm subsidies, defence contractors, and welfare programs.
And lets bring back "best viewed in 800x600"
What do you mean "bring back"? Half the "blogs" I got to are a tiny column down the center of the screen. Even major sites like CNN are apparently designed for 1024 or something, because there's a large white bar on the right side.
If those lawsuits are successful, it opens up SPEWS to be shut down too, because their goal is to label innocent bystanders as associated with spammers.
Just code to the standards and screw the users?
Yes.
Maybe you weren't around then, but it didn't bother people one bit to put "Best viewed in Netscape" or "Best viewer in IE" on their site.
"Best viewed in any W3C compliant browser" is even less burdonsome for end users, and is not some incomprehensible thing, it has tons of precedent.
I've never had a user have any serious problems with the sites I design, once I explain to them that it's their browser that is broken, not the site.
Ron Paul is more Libertarian than he is Republican. A name is just a name. Votes matter.
Libertarianism isn't a one-issue platform, not at all. Neither is the green platform, though it may seem like it to the uninitiated (greens are somewhat socialist, in addition to the environmentalist stuff).
For some reason the US never fully catched on to that.
Well there's just that little thing about recognizing the inherent human right to not have the fruits of your labor stolen, and the freedom of self-determination.
If we wanted to live in socialism, we'd move to russia. Keep your "good ideas" away from my freedom.
It's just happy to see you.
That's not necessarily the case. Yes it's a factor. But SCO might be worth $2 a share on the off chance that IBM just says "fuck it" and announces a tender offer to get rid of the SCO problem once and for all.
Keep in mind SCO does in fact own the rights to the UNIX source code. That's worth something after all.
If you include solar energy in the input side, you can never even break even. Laws of thermodynamics and such. The only incoming energy in the system is solar, the measure is how efficiently the system captures that solar energy into something transportable and usable.
If he didn't join hezbullah or kill any jews, I'd say he isn't following through.
Yes, exactly. You can't have it both ways.
Make sure to read the bug report about this before you go into it.
The arrogance of the mozilla devs regarding this issue makes it likely your patch would be for naught.
BTW - It does it automatically, without warning or asking you if you want to save the info. After my fresh install I said "sure ok lets try this form autocomplete" the first time I went on Google or something. Then later on I was typing in my credit card number on some site and Firefox popped a drop down showing my entire credit card number. I'm a programmer. If I got burned by it imagine how Joe Schmoe would handle it.
Also you can't ignore public terminals. Yes in theory people wouldn't enter such things on public terminals, and the people setting them up would disable all that stuff, or wipe the user data every log out.
But insecure-by-default is something that software in general is moving away from strongly. Trusting the end user to turn off dangerous options is not accepted as best practice anymore.
It's a common misconception that copyright only covers distribution. It also gives the author exclusive rights to modify the work.
The end user must abide by the GPL if they modify GPL software without redistribution.
The GPL does not really place any restrictions on modification without redistribution, however. It could, though, without venturing into EULA land.
No one is entitled to respect. Respect is earned.
Form autocomplete is on by default and will save your credit card numbers and full information in plaintext, ripe for any malware to grab.
Simply not storing form autocomplete on SSL forms would fix it.
Ever been in an argument with someone and said:
1. You'd like to murder them
2. Asserted that they've had an incestual relationship with their own mother?
I mean, when you spell it out like that it sound worse than "I'll kill you, you muthafucker".
People get mad, people say things they don't mean. Get over it.
That's not always true. You can write provably secure systems. I know that's missing the point, but you made "all" in capitals. :)
Yes it is a more general issue.
Ignoring bug reports for 5+ years is a serious issue. Especially when it's something like "Mozilla and Firefox store your credit card numbers in plaintext by default"
There's no arm twisting. No one is forced to use GPLed software. No GPL software developer is forced to use GPLv3. If embedded manufacturers would like to continue using only GPLv2 software, they are free to do so.
If GPL software developers would like to prevent manufacturers from taking away the rights of users to modify and redistribute the software, they they should use GPLv3. I suspect many will. Some won't. Notably, Linux will never be GPLv3, it can't be even if Linus wanted it to be. There's too much GPLv2 only code in it.
Linus shouldn't act like something has changed. The core value of the GPL has always been that you must not restrict the rights of the people you distribute GPL software to.
It's part of the reason BSD is a fractured mess that nearly no one uses, and Linux is so huge. With GPL you aren't going to be competing against heavily forked proprietary versions that blow the open source version out of the water (see pspice/cadence if you need an example). If Linux had been under a license that allowed forks that users can't modify or redistribute, it would be no better than the BSD license.
Linus's whole point is that the GPL 3 dictates technical details of projects that use it, where V2 didn't.
GPLv2 dictated technical details that affected the next user's right to modify the software. For example, you couldn't link a modified GPL program with a closed source library, since that would hamper the ability to modify the software.
The spirit of the GPL has not changed. The "political goal" is to ensure that all downsteam users that wind up using GPL software have the same rights to modify and distribute the software that earlier users had. That has not changed. It's only closing a loophole that some companies can use to take away those rights without violating the letter of the GPL.
Uh, yeah.
I wasn't asking for a grade-school lesson on RF. I was making a point with a rhetorical question.
I had a hard time wording it in a meaningful way, but you get my point. I'm not one of those whackos that things 3 milligauss is a "safe limit" for magnetic fields, but it's hard to say that electric and magnetic fields have no potential effects (gah punny).