But will I be able too painlessly move my email from Moz over? I've got two years of mail in my.mozilla folder and I don't intend to hack together some sick bastardized transfer.
can we have a resounding "Hell yeah?"
To test out Thunderbird, I moved my mail foders to a FAT32 data drive a few days ago, and told Thunderbird and Mozilla to both look at the same place. The auto-filters I use were just a bit off, but the folders themselves were all there.
You don't need to hack anything--it's a preference in the standard GUI layout for "mail folder location."
'course, I don't see T-bird as worth it at home--the integration of Moz just works so well for me at the moment.
Better-informed Americans (a small miniority of the class) would be aware that Spanish is well on the way to becoming the predominant language in the USA.
Why? Because self-identified Hispanics use it a lot?
When non-hispanic subcultures start replacing English with Spanish, THEN it'll have a chance of predominance. As it stands now, Spanish is the largest secondary-language in the nation, and may very well become a national second, but it's not about to replace English.
What you are concerned about was "totalitarianism", i.e. the philosophy that the state was all, and all citizens were subservient to it, existing only for the state. This is a separate concept from communism and socialism. The USSR, the Fascists under Mussolini, and the Nazis, were all good examples of totalitarian governments. "1984" was written as a warning against totalitarian policies.
You hit the nail right on the head. The policial bloc of "Communism" is guilty of rampant totolitarianism--which is what our Cold War PR should have said, as opposed to Communism. (The USSR certainy didn't say "Those democractic bastards" in their PR.)
Modern-day china seems to be making a pretty good go of the idea; I think that aside from being a little overzealous in censorship (and their organ donor program, ha ha), they're doing fairly well.
Yep. They're adjusting their system to allow for personal best-interest to aling with state best-interst. Only way to make ANY economic system work.
Socialism (different yet again) suggests that a society's first duty is to its citizens, and that the purpose of government is to take care of the people (rather than, for instance, ensure the welfare of corporations, or wage ridiculous wars to help the oil industry). Canada, the most innocuous nation in the history of nations, is mostly socialist. Do you consider the canucks evil? Aside from the Kids in the Hall, I mean.
I think socialism is a great thing, economically speaking. Unfortunatly, it's a PITA to get it (or communism) working through established democratic channels.
Check out This journal for an interesting look at a semi-socialist option.
- There is no such thing as Red Hat Linux or IBM Linux. There are IBM or RH distributions that make use of the Linux kernel
"Linux, the project" is a kernal, that forms the core of "Linux the operating system"--that thing that RMS calls "GNU/Linux." Red Hat, who compiles, sells, and supports their OS, can call it whatever they want--Red Hat Windows, Red Hat Linux, Red Hat GNU/Linux--whatever.
That said...
- Wtf does "licensing any Linux" and "licensing all Linux" means ? I'm assuming Gates mean licensing any Linux-based distro, in which case you adhere to whatever licensing terms the distro is released under, licensing terms which in turn are compliant with the GPL (since Linux is included).
Think about what the GPL licenses. If MS were to release "Explorer for Linux", they couldn't limit it to Red Hat Linux or IBM Linux--they'd have to let anyone who wants it to take it up and build their own Linux around it.
This is a limitation on the choices that deveopers of proprietary software are used to--and, as with most of the GPL's limitations, it's by design, not happenstance.
That blurb from Gates means rigorously nothing whatsoever. But most people aren't even aware of what the GPL is, and when they quickly read something like that, they decude "uuh, Linux is dangerous to my business" or something. That's just ridiculous.
Linux, as GPL'd software, IS dangerous to a software developer's business. The GPL is compatible with hardware vendors, system resellers, and custom-installers, but "old skool" software shops (Like MS!) are directly and intentionally threatened by the GPL.
Gates, I believe, does understand the GPL--he just doesn't think that it's a good thing. (And, to be honest, the argument that proprietary software drives innovation and/or adoption isn't an unfounded one. OSS is a long-term investment, not a short-term one.)
There are ALOT of people who would rather die than live in a Socialist world. Why do you think there was such witch-hunts to catch communists? Why do you think there was so much propaganda being spewed about how Communists are evil? We still have idiots today who post on slashdot saying Communism is evil and wrong.
Maybe because "Communism" was really "Tyranny of a radical minority that imposed its religion, economic whims, worldwide beligerment, and selfish greed on the nation?"
Socialism is all well and good--but only if implemented such that the base nature of humanity is aligned with the goals of the state. I.e., crime can't pay for most of the population. Oh, and that whole "leave intact democracy and religious freedom" thing is probably an important first step, too. (This is even sader, when a quick look at a few passages in the Bible give easy amunition for a religious arugment for socialism.)
Communism was evil and wrong--socialism may not be, but communism was, and trolling on/. won't make it not so.
What is the difference between sentient beings acting in concert and unsentient cells acting in concert?
Ooldes and oodles. Not the least of which being that a cell cannot act in an sentient manner on its own; the cells that make up a sentient being are sentient only when assembled.
Now, if we take "sentience" out of the picture, we have the possiblity of treating groups of social animals as one "mental organism." But this is a hack, not a good fit, as a pack/swarm/flock has an non-finite lifespan, and can far-outlive even the longest-lived animals we know of.
Which cell am I (the I) in? Or am I somewhere in between the individual units?
You are a seperate organism, that has instinctual preferences that encourage you to operate in a social structure with other members of your species. Because you are sentient, you can ignore this genetic encouragement if you so will it.
Set-Cookie is a request, not an order. If the client chooses to accept the cookie, that's the client's business. If the client chooses to ignore the cookie, so be it.
There are neither requests nor orders between computers; only commands.
Unless a computer is told to specifically not do something, it will do what it is told.
Never mind the extreme personal hell inflcited in the one being bullied. Guns or words, either one can ruin a life.
Bull
Shit.
Everyone I consider a friend was an outsider for at least one significant stretch of their life. Most of them suffered the kind of school-age ostracizing that fits the geek stereotypes--and those that didn't went through social problems just as hard and painful.
Being bullied isn't an "exterme personal hell." It's a fact of life, for every last person in this country. The only variable is when the bullying happens. (Think that you're in a "personal hell?" Go to a holocaust museum, or a drug recovery clinic. THOSE deserve the name "hell". School does not.)
A geek who can't figure out how to adapt to social quandaries isn't intelligent--he's just a rude, wierd bastard. Adapting to either influence the crowd or hardening to keep the crowd from bothering you is part of how you define who we are--it's not a unique trial that only the geeky go through.
Oh, and no one ever got killed by a word. Not even "kill him." Bullets, now--bullets kill and maim and almost always end their users' lives (try getting a job with "assault with a deadly weapon" on your record). Being mocked and belittled at every turn is just practice for marriage--I mean, the meeting your spouse's family part.;)
It makes me wonder if we are on the verge of creating a trans-human intelligence capable of consciousness.
Nope. We're not. We're just minimizing individuality by removing context, thus encouraging our pack-instincts to re-assert themselves.
Too bad we don't have any formal idea of what intelligence and conciousness is, or we could analyze the situation more closely...
We have all sorts of formal ideas. But when we start to talk about them, some jackoff gets their religion embroiled up in the debate, and it we don't get anywhere. (Both theists and atheists are guilty here.)
That's just how the law works. There are a whole bundle of things--like whether a particular work is derivitive of another or not--that are amazingly grey areas.
Pay for legal insurance, and when you have a serious question, go ask. The first step in most grey-area cases is an attempt at non-litigous settlement--when you get a C&D, decide if you want to fight or not; if not, you may get off with nothing more than an agreement to not do the grey-area thing anymore.
In general, follow the laws you know about (taxes, speed limits, etc.), don't try and hurt anyone, and repsect the rights of others. I'll wager that, baring incompetence ("your bad driving kills someone"), you'll be able to go your entire life without seeing the inside of a courtroom, much less getting sued.
Palm should produce the 'killer tungstens' but should also produce a highly refined, durable, and STABLE (in the 'it won't change for years' sense) platform for us.
Zire 71 all the way, baby.
Re:And I suspect most of us feel the same way...
on
LGPL is Viral for Java
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If one of us is a zealot, I think it's the one attacking the GPL because it doesn't let him horde other people's work.
Sheesh. I'm not a coder, I'm a/.er. It's possible to not toe the FSF party line and still support OSS, believe it or not.
Let's say that I write a program, and I give you a copy--this is copyright law, and you don't have the authority to make any copies not necessary for your own use of the program. (backups, quotations, whathaveyou.)
Now, let's say that I tell you "you can distribute that software or make derivitive works based on it." I've now given you something of value. Woot. Go sharing.
However, I _also_ say "If you give that software to anyone else, you have to follow this license. By doing this, I have taken something of value from you--a promise to behave a certain way.
Are you better off than you were before we started out this transaction? YES! Do you have every liberty that you had before we did our transaction? YES!. Did this transaction involve taking one of your liberties away? YES.
This is a semantics argument. That's all. Don't get your panties in a knot that I'm not adding "Gnu" when I say "Linux." The FSF's tendancy to do that banishes them to the political corner reserved for ecoterrorists, liberterians, and other zealots.
You should realize that there isn't a difference between "contract" and "license." Both define a transaction wherein something of value is exchanged for something else of value. If I give you one million dollars but stipulate that you have to buy every homeless man you meet a dinner, I've offered a contract wherein I give up my posession of one million dollars (a thing of value) and you give up your liberty to not buy homeless men dinner (a thing of value.)
If I form a PAC that goes around saying that all homeless men should always be bought dinner, it doesn't somehow magically make your thing of value value-less. In a like vein, the FSF's widely stated belief that all source code should be free for all to do what they wish with does not somehow make the right to not distribute the source code of your own innovations a thing of value.
Heck, the GPL also requires you to identify your changes--a small thing, and a very reasonable thing, but still a thing of value.
I like the GPL. It's good to have someone standing up for community-made software. It's great to have bundles of free software that are out there for the use and the taking.
But the GPL is a contract, and contracts have, as a matter of law, consideration (things of value) exchanged between both parties. They're not fundamental rights that are exchanged--but, when dealing with capital-R rights, not even a dreaded EULA can squash them.
Is a USAF Janitor more dangerous than a veteran bow-hunter?
I suspect so.
More to the point--we're not "keeping track" of ex-miltiary folks, we're "not getting rid of knowledge we have."
Let's say that you're suspected of a crime you didn't comit, and you are summoned to give a DNA sample. Why should the government destroy your DNA marker when you are found to be not guilty?
Personally, I don't even really have a problem even if law enforcement picks out people whose DNA they want and only tangentially could be the culprits.
The GPL gives something and takes something back. Even if the net result is a non-loss for the indifferent (neither for nor against OSS) party, the GPL still takes something and gives something else (a lot more, actually) in return.
If the GPL really did take "nothing", it'd be a declaration of Public Domain software, not a license. Saying that the GPL takes "nothing", when you should say "the GPL takes nothing that you have without the GPL" makes you sound like a zealot and damages the FSF cause.
What does look worrying is the suggestion that the Military should destroy the data once the serviceperson has been discharged. If it is not being done (assuming, of course, the serviceperson were told it would be) this is simply wrong.
There's little reason to destroy the DNA markings of a living person--remember, these are folks who have gone and been paid to learn how to kill. Every last one of them, including Air Force janitors, has at least a basic understanding of how to kill someone.
Keeping some tabs on these folk throughout their entire lives isn't that bad an idea. Especially given that they're effectively still reservists for the rest of their lives.
The only "freedom" you don't have with the GPL is withholding you modifications.
No need for quotes. That is a liberty commonly had by any innovator, worker, or knowledgeholder.
The right NOT to speak, NOT to bear arms, NOT to have a speedy trial, and TO house soldiers in your home if you so choose are all as important as the rights so enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The FSF places their desire to see and use innovations from their code above your liberty to keep those things hidden--in return, they offer the bribe of freely using their code.
It's a contract, not a constitution. And, IMO, the LGPL should be altered or voided if it doesn't do what those who use it understand it to do. Their permissions should be reversed, giving them each a chance to contribute to the GPL or not.
He wants a handheld device. He loves Sony products, and hates Handspring products. He has no real reasons or logical justification for this as far as I can tell - but he isn't going to change.
I don't like my Sony handheld--but that's neither here nor there.
Several PDA makers aside from Handspring make add-on modems. They conncet from the port on the bottom, not the non-standard expansion jack.
I have seen, in stores, a modem for Clies. While I don't know how well it'll work for sound recording, it should allow him to use a dial-up ISP with it.
If you can't find a modem that works, try looking for a custom hardware shop or a mod shop, and get a price-quote for a personally built PDA.
Oh, and if he's more anti-handspring than pro-Sony, try looking at other PDA manufacturers. All other things being equal, I recommend Palm.
I looked it up. "Sturgeon's Law" is essentially just an offhand remark by an author--not a real statistical study.
A much better offhand remark is "There's no accounting for tastes." Go to a bookstore and you might like one out of twenty books--but you can almost guarantee that if you go in with twenty people, you can all find at least one book that you like.
Consumers can pick cars that are safe, and if they want to get one that isn't, that's their choice.
You've obviously never bought a car.
Lemon laws serve as a check on dealer shenanigans. Especially with used cars, the threat of the state forcing the dealer to pay for the car's repairs is sometimes the only thing keeping the dealer from selling cars that really shouldn't be on the road.
However, your theory of removing all laws that protect consumers from corporations sounds like a great one. I can't wait to live in a world where I must sign a contract to even look at a car, I have to take the dealer's word on how efficient it is for gas mileage, and I just have to rely on a consumer group that can't summon cars for review to tell me if a car has serious safety hazards or not.
The free market is amazingly efficient at resource allocation--and that's about it. It's horrible at keeping a reasonable balance of weath, atrocious at preserving accuracy, and simply impotent when it comes to protecting participants in the market from the worst scams therin.
Capitalism without some government oversight is mob rule--and I think I'd be better served by a tyranny than the unthinking mob.
(Rules? This is diplomacy/war we're talking about. No real rules to speak of--and changing the rules that do exist is a fair move.)
We're playing the hand we've drawn--but it's too soon to call the outcome of the game. Let us play out the hand, and THEN judge if we're boom or bust, OK?
If I'm a sci-fi writer, and I describe a non-existant device in such away that it CAN Be engineered from my description, could that count as prior art in a patent dispute?
IANAL.
Yes, it could be used as Prior art--but only to the extent that it's described in your book. A good example is a Space Elevator--no one's going to get a patent on the idea of a really long cable to get to space, but they can patent the methods of raising that cable or the materials to make that cable.
Slashdot Mirror
But will I be able too painlessly move my email from Moz over? I've got two years of mail in my .mozilla folder and I don't intend to hack together some sick bastardized transfer.
can we have a resounding "Hell yeah?"
To test out Thunderbird, I moved my mail foders to a FAT32 data drive a few days ago, and told Thunderbird and Mozilla to both look at the same place. The auto-filters I use were just a bit off, but the folders themselves were all there.
You don't need to hack anything--it's a preference in the standard GUI layout for "mail folder location."
'course, I don't see T-bird as worth it at home--the integration of Moz just works so well for me at the moment.
Better-informed Americans (a small miniority of the class) would be aware that Spanish is well on the way to becoming the predominant language in the USA.
Why? Because self-identified Hispanics use it a lot?
When non-hispanic subcultures start replacing English with Spanish, THEN it'll have a chance of predominance. As it stands now, Spanish is the largest secondary-language in the nation, and may very well become a national second, but it's not about to replace English.
What you are concerned about was "totalitarianism", i.e. the philosophy that the state was all, and all citizens were subservient to it, existing only for the state. This is a separate concept from communism and socialism. The USSR, the Fascists under Mussolini, and the Nazis, were all good examples of totalitarian governments. "1984" was written as a warning against totalitarian policies.
You hit the nail right on the head. The policial bloc of "Communism" is guilty of rampant totolitarianism--which is what our Cold War PR should have said, as opposed to Communism. (The USSR certainy didn't say "Those democractic bastards" in their PR.)
Modern-day china seems to be making a pretty good go of the idea; I think that aside from being a little overzealous in censorship (and their organ donor program, ha ha), they're doing fairly well.
Yep. They're adjusting their system to allow for personal best-interest to aling with state best-interst. Only way to make ANY economic system work.
Socialism (different yet again) suggests that a society's first duty is to its citizens, and that the purpose of government is to take care of the people (rather than, for instance, ensure the welfare of corporations, or wage ridiculous wars to help the oil industry). Canada, the most innocuous nation in the history of nations, is mostly socialist. Do you consider the canucks evil? Aside from the Kids in the Hall, I mean.
I think socialism is a great thing, economically speaking. Unfortunatly, it's a PITA to get it (or communism) working through established democratic channels.
Check out This journal for an interesting look at a semi-socialist option.
- There is no such thing as Red Hat Linux or IBM Linux. There are IBM or RH distributions that make use of the Linux kernel
"Linux, the project" is a kernal, that forms the core of "Linux the operating system"--that thing that RMS calls "GNU/Linux." Red Hat, who compiles, sells, and supports their OS, can call it whatever they want--Red Hat Windows, Red Hat Linux, Red Hat GNU/Linux--whatever.
That said...
- Wtf does "licensing any Linux" and "licensing all Linux" means ? I'm assuming Gates mean licensing any Linux-based distro, in which case you adhere to whatever licensing terms the distro is released under, licensing terms which in turn are compliant with the GPL (since Linux is included).
Think about what the GPL licenses. If MS were to release "Explorer for Linux", they couldn't limit it to Red Hat Linux or IBM Linux--they'd have to let anyone who wants it to take it up and build their own Linux around it.
This is a limitation on the choices that deveopers of proprietary software are used to--and, as with most of the GPL's limitations, it's by design, not happenstance.
That blurb from Gates means rigorously nothing whatsoever. But most people aren't even aware of what the GPL is, and when they quickly read something like that, they decude "uuh, Linux is dangerous to my business" or something. That's just ridiculous.
Linux, as GPL'd software, IS dangerous to a software developer's business. The GPL is compatible with hardware vendors, system resellers, and custom-installers, but "old skool" software shops (Like MS!) are directly and intentionally threatened by the GPL.
Gates, I believe, does understand the GPL--he just doesn't think that it's a good thing. (And, to be honest, the argument that proprietary software drives innovation and/or adoption isn't an unfounded one. OSS is a long-term investment, not a short-term one.)
There are ALOT of people who would rather die than live in a Socialist world. Why do you think there was such witch-hunts to catch communists? Why do you think there was so much propaganda being spewed about how Communists are evil? We still have idiots today who post on slashdot saying Communism is evil and wrong.
/. won't make it not so.
Maybe because "Communism" was really "Tyranny of a radical minority that imposed its religion, economic whims, worldwide beligerment, and selfish greed on the nation?"
Socialism is all well and good--but only if implemented such that the base nature of humanity is aligned with the goals of the state. I.e., crime can't pay for most of the population. Oh, and that whole "leave intact democracy and religious freedom" thing is probably an important first step, too. (This is even sader, when a quick look at a few passages in the Bible give easy amunition for a religious arugment for socialism.)
Communism was evil and wrong--socialism may not be, but communism was, and trolling on
When software does obey these random computers, it's called a remote root exploit.
;)
Yes, it is. And it's still a command given to a computer that executes it without any thought or choice.
Actually, it's not a "remote root exploit" unless you're runing a system that actually has "root." It's just an exploit.
What is the difference between sentient beings acting in concert and unsentient cells acting in concert?
Ooldes and oodles. Not the least of which being that a cell cannot act in an sentient manner on its own; the cells that make up a sentient being are sentient only when assembled.
Now, if we take "sentience" out of the picture, we have the possiblity of treating groups of social animals as one "mental organism." But this is a hack, not a good fit, as a pack/swarm/flock has an non-finite lifespan, and can far-outlive even the longest-lived animals we know of.
Which cell am I (the I) in? Or am I somewhere in between the individual units?
You are a seperate organism, that has instinctual preferences that encourage you to operate in a social structure with other members of your species. Because you are sentient, you can ignore this genetic encouragement if you so will it.
Set-Cookie is a request, not an order. If the client chooses to accept the cookie, that's the client's business. If the client chooses to ignore the cookie, so be it.
There are neither requests nor orders between computers; only commands.
Unless a computer is told to specifically not do something, it will do what it is told.
Never mind the extreme personal hell inflcited in the one being bullied. Guns or words, either one can ruin a life.
;)
Bull
Shit.
Everyone I consider a friend was an outsider for at least one significant stretch of their life. Most of them suffered the kind of school-age ostracizing that fits the geek stereotypes--and those that didn't went through social problems just as hard and painful.
Being bullied isn't an "exterme personal hell." It's a fact of life, for every last person in this country. The only variable is when the bullying happens. (Think that you're in a "personal hell?" Go to a holocaust museum, or a drug recovery clinic. THOSE deserve the name "hell". School does not.)
A geek who can't figure out how to adapt to social quandaries isn't intelligent--he's just a rude, wierd bastard. Adapting to either influence the crowd or hardening to keep the crowd from bothering you is part of how you define who we are--it's not a unique trial that only the geeky go through.
Oh, and no one ever got killed by a word. Not even "kill him." Bullets, now--bullets kill and maim and almost always end their users' lives (try getting a job with "assault with a deadly weapon" on your record). Being mocked and belittled at every turn is just practice for marriage--I mean, the meeting your spouse's family part.
It makes me wonder if we are on the verge of creating a trans-human intelligence capable of consciousness.
Nope. We're not. We're just minimizing individuality by removing context, thus encouraging our pack-instincts to re-assert themselves.
Too bad we don't have any formal idea of what intelligence and conciousness is, or we could analyze the situation more closely...
We have all sorts of formal ideas. But when we start to talk about them, some jackoff gets their religion embroiled up in the debate, and it we don't get anywhere. (Both theists and atheists are guilty here.)
IIRC, Usher wasn't arguing against copying his lecture--his lecture itself was an alleged violation of the DMCA.
That's just how the law works. There are a whole bundle of things--like whether a particular work is derivitive of another or not--that are amazingly grey areas.
Pay for legal insurance, and when you have a serious question, go ask. The first step in most grey-area cases is an attempt at non-litigous settlement--when you get a C&D, decide if you want to fight or not; if not, you may get off with nothing more than an agreement to not do the grey-area thing anymore.
In general, follow the laws you know about (taxes, speed limits, etc.), don't try and hurt anyone, and repsect the rights of others. I'll wager that, baring incompetence ("your bad driving kills someone"), you'll be able to go your entire life without seeing the inside of a courtroom, much less getting sued.
('course, IANAL...)
Palm should produce the 'killer tungstens' but should also produce a highly refined, durable, and STABLE (in the 'it won't change for years' sense) platform for us.
Zire 71 all the way, baby.
If one of us is a zealot, I think it's the one attacking the GPL because it doesn't let him horde other people's work.
/.er. It's possible to not toe the FSF party line and still support OSS, believe it or not.
Sheesh. I'm not a coder, I'm a
Let's say that I write a program, and I give you a copy--this is copyright law, and you don't have the authority to make any copies not necessary for your own use of the program. (backups, quotations, whathaveyou.)
Now, let's say that I tell you "you can distribute that software or make derivitive works based on it." I've now given you something of value. Woot. Go sharing.
However, I _also_ say "If you give that software to anyone else, you have to follow this license. By doing this, I have taken something of value from you--a promise to behave a certain way.
Are you better off than you were before we started out this transaction? YES! Do you have every liberty that you had before we did our transaction? YES!. Did this transaction involve taking one of your liberties away? YES.
This is a semantics argument. That's all. Don't get your panties in a knot that I'm not adding "Gnu" when I say "Linux." The FSF's tendancy to do that banishes them to the political corner reserved for ecoterrorists, liberterians, and other zealots.
You should realize that there isn't a difference between "contract" and "license." Both define a transaction wherein something of value is exchanged for something else of value. If I give you one million dollars but stipulate that you have to buy every homeless man you meet a dinner, I've offered a contract wherein I give up my posession of one million dollars (a thing of value) and you give up your liberty to not buy homeless men dinner (a thing of value.)
If I form a PAC that goes around saying that all homeless men should always be bought dinner, it doesn't somehow magically make your thing of value value-less. In a like vein, the FSF's widely stated belief that all source code should be free for all to do what they wish with does not somehow make the right to not distribute the source code of your own innovations a thing of value.
Heck, the GPL also requires you to identify your changes--a small thing, and a very reasonable thing, but still a thing of value.
I like the GPL. It's good to have someone standing up for community-made software. It's great to have bundles of free software that are out there for the use and the taking.
But the GPL is a contract, and contracts have, as a matter of law, consideration (things of value) exchanged between both parties. They're not fundamental rights that are exchanged--but, when dealing with capital-R rights, not even a dreaded EULA can squash them.
Is a USAF Janitor more dangerous than a veteran bow-hunter?
I suspect so.
More to the point--we're not "keeping track" of ex-miltiary folks, we're "not getting rid of knowledge we have."
Let's say that you're suspected of a crime you didn't comit, and you are summoned to give a DNA sample. Why should the government destroy your DNA marker when you are found to be not guilty?
Personally, I don't even really have a problem even if law enforcement picks out people whose DNA they want and only tangentially could be the culprits.
The GPL takes nothing
NO.
The GPL gives something and takes something back. Even if the net result is a non-loss for the indifferent (neither for nor against OSS) party, the GPL still takes something and gives something else (a lot more, actually) in return.
If the GPL really did take "nothing", it'd be a declaration of Public Domain software, not a license. Saying that the GPL takes "nothing", when you should say "the GPL takes nothing that you have without the GPL" makes you sound like a zealot and damages the FSF cause.
What does look worrying is the suggestion that the Military should destroy the data once the serviceperson has been discharged. If it is not being done (assuming, of course, the serviceperson were told it would be) this is simply wrong.
There's little reason to destroy the DNA markings of a living person--remember, these are folks who have gone and been paid to learn how to kill. Every last one of them, including Air Force janitors, has at least a basic understanding of how to kill someone.
Keeping some tabs on these folk throughout their entire lives isn't that bad an idea. Especially given that they're effectively still reservists for the rest of their lives.
The only "freedom" you don't have with the GPL is withholding you modifications.
No need for quotes. That is a liberty commonly had by any innovator, worker, or knowledgeholder.
The right NOT to speak, NOT to bear arms, NOT to have a speedy trial, and TO house soldiers in your home if you so choose are all as important as the rights so enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The FSF places their desire to see and use innovations from their code above your liberty to keep those things hidden--in return, they offer the bribe of freely using their code.
It's a contract, not a constitution. And, IMO, the LGPL should be altered or voided if it doesn't do what those who use it understand it to do. Their permissions should be reversed, giving them each a chance to contribute to the GPL or not.
He wants a handheld device. He loves Sony products, and hates Handspring products. He has no real reasons or logical justification for this as far as I can tell - but he isn't going to change.
I don't like my Sony handheld--but that's neither here nor there.
Several PDA makers aside from Handspring make add-on modems. They conncet from the port on the bottom, not the non-standard expansion jack.
I have seen, in stores, a modem for Clies. While I don't know how well it'll work for sound recording, it should allow him to use a dial-up ISP with it.
If you can't find a modem that works, try looking for a custom hardware shop or a mod shop, and get a price-quote for a personally built PDA.
Oh, and if he's more anti-handspring than pro-Sony, try looking at other PDA manufacturers. All other things being equal, I recommend Palm.
I looked it up. "Sturgeon's Law" is essentially just an offhand remark by an author--not a real statistical study.
A much better offhand remark is "There's no accounting for tastes." Go to a bookstore and you might like one out of twenty books--but you can almost guarantee that if you go in with twenty people, you can all find at least one book that you like.
Consumers can pick cars that are safe, and if they want to get one that isn't, that's their choice.
You've obviously never bought a car.
Lemon laws serve as a check on dealer shenanigans. Especially with used cars, the threat of the state forcing the dealer to pay for the car's repairs is sometimes the only thing keeping the dealer from selling cars that really shouldn't be on the road.
However, your theory of removing all laws that protect consumers from corporations sounds like a great one. I can't wait to live in a world where I must sign a contract to even look at a car, I have to take the dealer's word on how efficient it is for gas mileage, and I just have to rely on a consumer group that can't summon cars for review to tell me if a car has serious safety hazards or not.
The free market is amazingly efficient at resource allocation--and that's about it. It's horrible at keeping a reasonable balance of weath, atrocious at preserving accuracy, and simply impotent when it comes to protecting participants in the market from the worst scams therin.
Capitalism without some government oversight is mob rule--and I think I'd be better served by a tyranny than the unthinking mob.
And you distinguish the "innovative" works from the crappy ones how?
(Rules? This is diplomacy/war we're talking about. No real rules to speak of--and changing the rules that do exist is a fair move.)
We're playing the hand we've drawn--but it's too soon to call the outcome of the game. Let us play out the hand, and THEN judge if we're boom or bust, OK?
Perhaps we could ask them to give the US a year's grace before they start becoming suicide bombers?
How about, instead, we see if there are a significant number of suicide bombings after a year?
If I'm a sci-fi writer, and I describe a non-existant device in such away that it CAN Be engineered from my description, could that count as prior art in a patent dispute?
IANAL.
Yes, it could be used as Prior art--but only to the extent that it's described in your book. A good example is a Space Elevator--no one's going to get a patent on the idea of a really long cable to get to space, but they can patent the methods of raising that cable or the materials to make that cable.