The Banshee devs asked nicely to not modify the affiliate code in the plugin in order to support the GNOME Foundation (it's a comment in the source code). Canonical ignored that. It's not illegal but rude nonetheless.
Do you not see such a request is hypocritical?
The entire moral point of Free Software is that recipients of code are freed from whatever individual restraints a provider may otherwise put on them. To attempt to temper that freedom, even in the form of a "request", seems like a betrayal of Free Software values to me.
I would be fine with the plugin being non-Free if that was the authors desired but I do not like something being proclaimed as Free Software when the intent is clearly otherwise.
Free is Free. Free is not "Free-except-this-bit". Otherwise what other "polite" requests might devs make? Don't port this to Windows? Don't work on this code on the Sabbath?
For Free Software to work there can be no exceptions, people have to be able to trust that the moral rights allowed for in the licence are universal and absolute.
I find this incredibly ironic. It is no mistake that Free and Open software licences grant the moral right for recipients to modify their code as they see fit. It the the licences very reason for existing.
If the Banshee developers didn't want other people profiting off the code they should have released it (or the plugin if possible) under a non-commercial licence.
To grant someone a Free licence and then complain bitterly when someone has the temerity to use the rights intentionally granted therein seems like bad form to me.
I'm pretty sure LightPeak uses an optical connector.
Then you haven't been keeping up with the news as Intel announced (or let slip) that the Light Peak would be all electrical (at least at first) some time ago.
Thunderbolt was developed under the code name Light Peak.
I got the shits with Ubuntu when they went from FSpot to Shotwell with no migration path. I have a large amount of data that means a lot to me personally and all of a sudden it's simply deprecated. (FSpot is still installable but bugs that render it useless simply don't get fixed).
Changing window managers, colour schemes etc is one thing but abandoning software that looks after things that people have significant personal investment in is a recipe for justified discontent.
Seeing as I would have to re-import all my photos into Shotwell anyway I decided to buy an iMac and have them all tucked safely away in iPhoto instead.
I still have my Ubuntu box and will continue to follow future releases but I'm not sure I will trust it with anything important until it demonstrates that transitioning user data to new releases is looked after well. I like the sometimes experimental nature of Ubuntu but it needs to temper that with supporting users through any change.
Unless you have people breaking down your doors, shooting anyone who gets in their way and lobbing a grenade into your server room then no, there isn't a "war" against small email servers.
I find it strange that you mention AGW and "climate change" but don't go back to the "greenhouse effect" as I think the transition to "climate change" is more nuanced than a simple rebranding.
First we had the "greenhouse effect", the relatively simple principle that increased C02 in the atmosphere would reduce energy escaping into space much like glass in a greenhouse.
Then we had AGW which was the start of the examination of the consequences of the "greenhouse effect", the major effect being that the globe as a whole would warm, hence the name.
Then we had "climate change" which was continuing the examination of the consequences of AGW, ie what effect AGW would have on climate systems.
It is easy to portray that as a sneaky rebranding by "believers" but I think that is unfair, rather the name has changed to reflect more closely what the science is looking at as previous issues became more settled.
As I understand it the climate change models suggest an increase in extreme weather events but these aren't where you'd find evidence for or against climate change, models are models and modelling the whole earth or a significant portion of it and expecting results sufficiently precise enough to test is a bit optimistic I think.
If you want to disprove the science then you need to look at the details of the science. "Climate change" is not a theory but what is predicted based on many many theories.
If you want to look for falsifiable evidence then you need to look at the details and perhaps you should start at the bottom. Does an increase in atmospheric C02 have the effect described by the "greenhouse effect"? This is pretty easy to test (as these things go) and you'll probably conclude what everybody else does.
Given that it isn't so much finding a way to disprove AGW as identifying other mechanisms that would counter the additional energy retention. Doing so may not be as simple as falsifying someone else's tests you may actually have to discover as yet unknown mechanisms of your own
If you can't do that and conclude that the science suggests that as a whole the globe is getting warmer then you can start working on the effects on climate.
If you want falsifiable tests you must be prepared to look at the nitty gritty, not just the large scale models, because the science happens at the nitty gritty level.
My ethics indeed make the wellbeing of people geographically closer to me, especially within governmental boundaries (town, county, state, country), more important than that of distant people. Because I am more likely to have a more direct connection to them, either knowing them, or someone they know. Their wellbeing feeds back more directly to mine.
While it is legal to offshore the work, with a 9-10% unemployment rate in this country, it's not ethical or moral.
If you have the choice do you do most of your shopping at your local corner store or the cheaper supermarket a little further away? I suspect most people go to the supermarket and pay lower prices without a second thought about some sort of ethical duty to those more local to them.
I'd suggest that support of ones own country over another is more likely to be an extension of self-interest rather than any ethical consideration.
Indeed - the point Cohen seems to completely ignore is the morality of engaging in a race to the bottom [wikipedia.org].
True - rampant outsourcing has, and will definitely help a lot of professionals get their start in India - and that IS a good thing
As you almost point out, it isn't just a race to the bottom. For the folks in the country you are outsourcing to it's part of a race to the top.
it is the user that chose to share THEIR searches with Bing
I agree but haven't seen mention of exactly how the users are opting in to this. It would be interesting to know exactly what one has to do to opt in and whether the people doing it really understand that they are sending MS details of the searches they do and the links they click on.
I keep seeing that mentioned but surely trading has ceased given the current circumstances.
The only thing having it operating would achieve would be having stocks tank which doesn't seem like a particularly useful strategy for Mubarak (or anyone else).
I don't hope they fail, a plurality of organisations taking slightly different approaches is probably a healthy thing here.
However to be successful their strategy doesn't just have to appeal to the general public, it has to appeal to people wishing to make leaks.
I suspect most leakers:
a) Favour wide dispersal of the leaks.
b) Will trust Wikileaks, who put their own asses on the line, over some largely anonymous information brokers with no direct capability to publish.
I also think the OpenLeaks strategy is far more risky legally, merely trafficking in classified or trade secret information seems far less likely to be protected than publishing it.
I think it takes a certain viewpoint to describe it as a "punch".
If you think about the computing world today I don't think it is overstating things to say that it would be very different if not for the fact that reverse engineering of the original IBM PC bios was permitted by law.
Geohot's tinkering may not lead to such change but his freedom to tinker with his own equipment and talk about his tinkering should nonetheless be supported. I have had Playstations, and Xbox, a Wii, a Nintendo DS, an iPhone, an iPad etc and have never thought seriousy about jailbreaking or chipping any of them. I do think other people should be able to do so with their own stuff if they want to and be free to talk about their findings.
Even in a general sense it seems rather close to libel to label someone like that. Zeroing out scores or limiting functionality is one thing, attaching a label to them publicly seems like asking for trouble.
Perhaps in the literal sense of Guantanamo you are correct. There are likely other Guantanamos, places the USA uses when it wants to be conveniently outside it's own jurisdiction.
There are pretty well documented cases of extraordinary rendition of people by the CIA, presumably with the approval of the US executive branch, including from Sweden with Swedish compliancy.
As such (and considering the statements about Assange from significant people in the US government) I don't think it's entirely delusional or paranoid for him to be concerned about extra-judicial action that may be taken against him.
Like it or not it's a simple fact that the USA has demonstrated willingness to circumvent the rule of law if it sees fit.
The US Government's own report concludes that the vast majority of people in Guantanamo (either historically or now) have no business being there and were or should be released (if they can find somewhere to send them).
Of the 779 people held at Guantanamo since January 2002 only 36 are being held for prosecution and 48 are marked for being held "indefinately". A handful of others have been handed over for prosecution in other countries. By my reckoning that makes at least 85% of detainees held without good, legal reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody is confused. Thunderbolt is DisplayPort and PCIe bundled together.
The SATA 3 ports on Cougar Point platform have nothing to do with Thunderbolt.
Do you not see such a request is hypocritical?
The entire moral point of Free Software is that recipients of code are freed from whatever individual restraints a provider may otherwise put on them. To attempt to temper that freedom, even in the form of a "request", seems like a betrayal of Free Software values to me.
I would be fine with the plugin being non-Free if that was the authors desired but I do not like something being proclaimed as Free Software when the intent is clearly otherwise.
Free is Free. Free is not "Free-except-this-bit". Otherwise what other "polite" requests might devs make? Don't port this to Windows? Don't work on this code on the Sabbath?
For Free Software to work there can be no exceptions, people have to be able to trust that the moral rights allowed for in the licence are universal and absolute.
I find this incredibly ironic. It is no mistake that Free and Open software licences grant the moral right for recipients to modify their code as they see fit. It the the licences very reason for existing.
If the Banshee developers didn't want other people profiting off the code they should have released it (or the plugin if possible) under a non-commercial licence.
To grant someone a Free licence and then complain bitterly when someone has the temerity to use the rights intentionally granted therein seems like bad form to me.
Isn't a lightning bolt typically used as a shock hazard warning symbol? It seems rather stupid to start labeling IO ports with a similar symbol.
I'm pretty sure LightPeak uses an optical connector.
Then you haven't been keeping up with the news as Intel announced (or let slip) that the Light Peak would be all electrical (at least at first) some time ago.
Thunderbolt was developed under the code name Light Peak.
There is some truth in that I suspect.
I got the shits with Ubuntu when they went from FSpot to Shotwell with no migration path. I have a large amount of data that means a lot to me personally and all of a sudden it's simply deprecated. (FSpot is still installable but bugs that render it useless simply don't get fixed).
Changing window managers, colour schemes etc is one thing but abandoning software that looks after things that people have significant personal investment in is a recipe for justified discontent.
Seeing as I would have to re-import all my photos into Shotwell anyway I decided to buy an iMac and have them all tucked safely away in iPhoto instead.
I still have my Ubuntu box and will continue to follow future releases but I'm not sure I will trust it with anything important until it demonstrates that transitioning user data to new releases is looked after well. I like the sometimes experimental nature of Ubuntu but it needs to temper that with supporting users through any change.
Unless you have people breaking down your doors, shooting anyone who gets in their way and lobbing a grenade into your server room then no, there isn't a "war" against small email servers.
Hire her?
And hope you don't have to fire her?
I find it strange that you mention AGW and "climate change" but don't go back to the "greenhouse effect" as I think the transition to "climate change" is more nuanced than a simple rebranding.
First we had the "greenhouse effect", the relatively simple principle that increased C02 in the atmosphere would reduce energy escaping into space much like glass in a greenhouse.
Then we had AGW which was the start of the examination of the consequences of the "greenhouse effect", the major effect being that the globe as a whole would warm, hence the name.
Then we had "climate change" which was continuing the examination of the consequences of AGW, ie what effect AGW would have on climate systems.
It is easy to portray that as a sneaky rebranding by "believers" but I think that is unfair, rather the name has changed to reflect more closely what the science is looking at as previous issues became more settled.
As I understand it the climate change models suggest an increase in extreme weather events but these aren't where you'd find evidence for or against climate change, models are models and modelling the whole earth or a significant portion of it and expecting results sufficiently precise enough to test is a bit optimistic I think.
If you want to disprove the science then you need to look at the details of the science. "Climate change" is not a theory but what is predicted based on many many theories.
If you want to look for falsifiable evidence then you need to look at the details and perhaps you should start at the bottom.
Does an increase in atmospheric C02 have the effect described by the "greenhouse effect"? This is pretty easy to test (as these things go) and you'll probably conclude what everybody else does.
Given that it isn't so much finding a way to disprove AGW as identifying other mechanisms that would counter the additional energy retention. Doing so may not be as simple as falsifying someone else's tests you may actually have to discover as yet unknown mechanisms of your own
If you can't do that and conclude that the science suggests that as a whole the globe is getting warmer then you can start working on the effects on climate.
If you want falsifiable tests you must be prepared to look at the nitty gritty, not just the large scale models, because the science happens at the nitty gritty level.
My ethics indeed make the wellbeing of people geographically closer to me, especially within governmental boundaries (town, county, state, country), more important than that of distant people. Because I am more likely to have a more direct connection to them, either knowing them, or someone they know. Their wellbeing feeds back more directly to mine.
Self interest is "ethics"?
If you have the choice do you do most of your shopping at your local corner store or the cheaper supermarket a little further away? I suspect most people go to the supermarket and pay lower prices without a second thought about some sort of ethical duty to those more local to them.
I'd suggest that support of ones own country over another is more likely to be an extension of self-interest rather than any ethical consideration.
As you almost point out, it isn't just a race to the bottom. For the folks in the country you are outsourcing to it's part of a race to the top.
I agree but haven't seen mention of exactly how the users are opting in to this. It would be interesting to know exactly what one has to do to opt in and whether the people doing it really understand that they are sending MS details of the searches they do and the links they click on.
I keep seeing that mentioned but surely trading has ceased given the current circumstances. The only thing having it operating would achieve would be having stocks tank which doesn't seem like a particularly useful strategy for Mubarak (or anyone else).
Every Egyptian has been spared the possibility of reading that moronic post.
I don't hope they fail, a plurality of organisations taking slightly different approaches is probably a healthy thing here. However to be successful their strategy doesn't just have to appeal to the general public, it has to appeal to people wishing to make leaks.
I suspect most leakers:
a) Favour wide dispersal of the leaks.
b) Will trust Wikileaks, who put their own asses on the line, over some largely anonymous information brokers with no direct capability to publish.
I also think the OpenLeaks strategy is far more risky legally, merely trafficking in classified or trade secret information seems far less likely to be protected than publishing it.
I think it takes a certain viewpoint to describe it as a "punch".
If you think about the computing world today I don't think it is overstating things to say that it would be very different if not for the fact that reverse engineering of the original IBM PC bios was permitted by law.
Geohot's tinkering may not lead to such change but his freedom to tinker with his own equipment and talk about his tinkering should nonetheless be supported. I have had Playstations, and Xbox, a Wii, a Nintendo DS, an iPhone, an iPad etc and have never thought seriousy about jailbreaking or chipping any of them. I do think other people should be able to do so with their own stuff if they want to and be free to talk about their findings.
Even in a general sense it seems rather close to libel to label someone like that. Zeroing out scores or limiting functionality is one thing, attaching a label to them publicly seems like asking for trouble.
We used to have a neat solution for the problem of making this distinction, in the form of specific words like "attack" that have a specific meaning.
When was this mythical time?
Unless you've got some magical routing protocol up your sleeve, yes it is a bad idea.
They generously work an extra day on leap years.
Perhaps in the literal sense of Guantanamo you are correct. There are likely other Guantanamos, places the USA uses when it wants to be conveniently outside it's own jurisdiction.
There are pretty well documented cases of extraordinary rendition of people by the CIA, presumably with the approval of the US executive branch, including from Sweden with Swedish compliancy.
As such (and considering the statements about Assange from significant people in the US government) I don't think it's entirely delusional or paranoid for him to be concerned about extra-judicial action that may be taken against him.
Like it or not it's a simple fact that the USA has demonstrated willingness to circumvent the rule of law if it sees fit.
Can you specify where I claimed any had?
No one? The reckoning I offered was the US reckoning, ie what the US has "gone by" in releasing the prisoners it has.
Blackstone's formulation is hardly something new in the realm of law and order.
The US Government's own report concludes that the vast majority of people in Guantanamo (either historically or now) have no business being there and were or should be released (if they can find somewhere to send them).
Of the 779 people held at Guantanamo since January 2002 only 36 are being held for prosecution and 48 are marked for being held "indefinately". A handful of others have been handed over for prosecution in other countries. By my reckoning that makes at least 85% of detainees held without good, legal reason.