This is America! You aren't going to be persecuted for harboring seditious ideas.
The scary thing is you might actually be serious. If so, I'm dumbfounded at that level of total ignorance of history. Please say you were just trolling!
So what you're saying is that in an "orthodox free software" model, there really are only three classes of software:
Commercial "non-free" software (not acceptable)
"Free as in beer" software (debatable)
"Free as in speech and as in beer" software (acceptable)
This basically nullifies the argument that "free as in speech" is the valuable part since there is no acceptable software that isn't "free as in beer". That is assuming that #2 is an acceptable choice despite being restricted (just not commercially).
This follows from the people I've met who are fairly orthodox but don't care that they don't have the BIOS code or other firmware code for their hardware.
As to the common good distribution issue, the reasonable solution would be for everyone interested to pool their resources and buy a license for the entire community. This would be a one time payment that would reimburse the author for their work but would transfer rights to the community in the same way as other public welfare purchases work (such as roads, sewers, etc.) Of course, you now have the same power and politics issues as any other club, commune or government.
Re:Spray "1984" on them.
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
Or put with less latin and more math:
4 > 5 is FALSE
4 > 500 is FALSE
The first is not "less false" than the second and in no way is it "true".
Re:Spray "1984" on them.
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
Reductio ad absurdum is a way of showing the flaw in an illogical argument which is masked by its lack of magnitude.
The expensive source license allows you to create modifications to your copy and modify all the other copies where you've purchased the source license but to no others including copies you've only obtained under the "free as in beer" license. You may also send your changes back to the original author who can distribute your changes at whatever price they want if they choose with whatever changes they want to make. You can thus tinker all you like with the one you've paid for. Is that "free as in speech" while not "free as in beer"? Do you think it would sell?
Actually I do understand but haven't been able to formulate a straw man that allows for a "free as in speech" agreement that isn't also "free as in beer" to everyone but the first person buying a license. Effectively, all "free as in speech" becomes "free as in beer" under an "orthodox" free software model.
I suspect an "orthodox" person wouldn't consider a non-redistribution agreement which includes both the original and derivative works to be "free" and without that, it is automatically gratis (unlike the car). Unless you have a matter duplicator, bits and atoms are NOT the same and make for bad analogies when discussing redistribution.
Let's be honest here. If "free as in speech" were the real issue, there'd be some commercial apps getting acceptance and somebody would have that as a business model without ending up dropping the project or filing for Chapter 11. See Corel or FrameMaker for examples.
What really happens is you get lots of people saying "free as in speech" to make themselves feel good about their motives when they really just don't want to buy software and don't mind going the warez route if need be.
It'd be an interesting experiment. Release two versions of a product. One is no cost but is only the binary. One is expensive but has the source (with a restriction not to redistribute since "free as in speech" is about having access to the source). Let's see which one gets the most copies out. Then lets see how long it takes for the source to get distributed anyway.
That's not paranoid, it's a reasonable reading of reality. And to make it worse, those bozos hire their friends, ad nauseum. That's one of the reasons that new industries are very dynamic. It's also why new industries have higher percentages of women, gays, Jews and other groups not in the "old boy network". They don't have the entrenched bozos or the riches to support them.
The loss of scientific management and operations research and their replacement with "make people feel good about themselves" management classes has cost us all. It seems to have disappeared when industry got so successful that the costs of bad management got to be acceptable with the result that executives could hire any bozo and usually did.
There is one good answer when an employer asks, "What if I train my employees and they leave?" and that is "What if you don't train them and they stay?"
Re:Even sterile GMOs can cross-pollinate successfu
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
So after several hundred years we're making totally random mistakes (like cross breeding amarican and african bees) and you say we should keep doing the old random breeding techniques?
Sexuality based not on societal pressures but on personal choices?
Working toward goals more important than just your own self interest?
Treating people as individuals rather than as members of a sex while not pretending that they are neuter? (just about impossible to do #1 without this)
They all have been fine in my experience and have been a lot of being human.
loss of individuality in favor of community - Heinlein's characters are individuals working toward a common goal - Seems OK
complete gender equality while keeping distinction - Seems OK
By your standards, anyone not tied to the current sexual mores and who isn't totally self centered is a Satanist.
Re:GM food is not a good idea yet
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
What the &*^% does smoking have to do with power generation? Nobody's really putting thermocouples in cigarettes, are they?
Re:Luddites crawling out of the woodwork?
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
Technology shouldn't be used until it is proven that every possible side effect has been know. Humanitarian motives are likely evidence of corruption. Boy I'd hate to live in your world.
(The first is logically impossible, the second is just mean spirited)
Re:Even sterile GMOs can cross-pollinate successfu
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
So genetically modifying a species with unknown results is OK if you use several hundred year old technology (selective cross breeding and breeding with mutant strains) but genetically modifying a species with unknown results is not OK if you use a newer technology. Interesting. Why?
Re:Earth to spaceman...
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
The riots in Seattle were't neo-Luddite. They were neo-Anarchist and anti-corporate. They'd blow up your office whether you were high tech or low tech. I mean, they targetted Starbucks - not exactly a mecca of technology research.
Unfortunately news like "new rice saves million lives" tends not to make the major newscasts or papers. Now, "3 people sick from new rice" would get banner headlines and Congressional investigations and probably cause the company to go bankrupt from the bad publicity.
For example, Dow Chemical (much as I dislike them for their napalm production) was forced out of business by the silicone breast implant health lawsuits and related press. The fact that there was no statistically significant difference in health between populations with and without the implants, try explaining statistics to a jury or a newscaster.
Re:Who'se to blame for starvation?
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
Are you actually saying that standing by and watching someone die when you have the means to same them at hand is a moral or ethical choice? I believe the law refers to it as "Murder by depraved indifference to human life"
Re:Crippled for a reason
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 2
In case somebody reads this wrong, kudzu isn't genetically modified or a biological mutation. It's just what happens when a non-native biological ends up with no competitors for a niche and no predators.
Re:Steril genetic plants
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
do you recall jurassic park?
Yes, I do. I recall it could be summed up as "Nature Good - Technology Bad". Besides, if you remember Jurasic Park (the movie), you'd remember "Nature finds a way" as the big theme and explanation of why the dinosaurs managed to reproduce. Guess rice would do the same since its natural. (Humans, I guess, are machine made)
Rather than re-create Excel, it'd be far nicer to look at Lotus's now abandoned Improv
Better still, look at Javelin Software's Javelin and Javelin Plus. Lotus Improv was an almost complete GUI clone of Javelin Plus. Unfortunatly, the parts that weren't identical weren't as well thought out.
The reason MS didn't have overlapping windows was that unlike the Mac which could have custom hardware and no legacy to deal with, MS had to make Windows 1.0 run on the hardware that people already had. That was frequently 8088 PCs with CGA displays, 64K of RAM and no mouse.
Mac was GUI for people who could afford a very expensive new computer with almost no RAM (128K with almost none left after OS load) and no hard drive. Windows was the GUI for "The Rest of Us". When the rest of us got better hardware, Windows got overlapping windows.
Slashdot Mirror
The scary thing is you might actually be serious. If so, I'm dumbfounded at that level of total ignorance of history. Please say you were just trolling!
- Commercial "non-free" software (not acceptable)
- "Free as in beer" software (debatable)
- "Free as in speech and as in beer" software (acceptable)
This basically nullifies the argument that "free as in speech" is the valuable part since there is no acceptable software that isn't "free as in beer". That is assuming that #2 is an acceptable choice despite being restricted (just not commercially).This follows from the people I've met who are fairly orthodox but don't care that they don't have the BIOS code or other firmware code for their hardware.
As to the common good distribution issue, the reasonable solution would be for everyone interested to pool their resources and buy a license for the entire community. This would be a one time payment that would reimburse the author for their work but would transfer rights to the community in the same way as other public welfare purchases work (such as roads, sewers, etc.) Of course, you now have the same power and politics issues as any other club, commune or government.
4 > 5 is FALSE
4 > 500 is FALSE
The first is not "less false" than the second and in no way is it "true".
Reductio ad absurdum is a way of showing the flaw in an illogical argument which is masked by its lack of magnitude.
The expensive source license allows you to create modifications to your copy and modify all the other copies where you've purchased the source license but to no others including copies you've only obtained under the "free as in beer" license. You may also send your changes back to the original author who can distribute your changes at whatever price they want if they choose with whatever changes they want to make. You can thus tinker all you like with the one you've paid for. Is that "free as in speech" while not "free as in beer"? Do you think it would sell?
I suspect an "orthodox" person wouldn't consider a non-redistribution agreement which includes both the original and derivative works to be "free" and without that, it is automatically gratis (unlike the car). Unless you have a matter duplicator, bits and atoms are NOT the same and make for bad analogies when discussing redistribution.
[NS6 is crap] - Well, you should use the Mozilla daily builds, they don't have that commercial stuff.
[Mozilla is crap] - Well, what do you expect from unreleased daily builds?
What really happens is you get lots of people saying "free as in speech" to make themselves feel good about their motives when they really just don't want to buy software and don't mind going the warez route if need be.
It'd be an interesting experiment. Release two versions of a product. One is no cost but is only the binary. One is expensive but has the source (with a restriction not to redistribute since "free as in speech" is about having access to the source). Let's see which one gets the most copies out. Then lets see how long it takes for the source to get distributed anyway.
That's not paranoid, it's a reasonable reading of reality. And to make it worse, those bozos hire their friends, ad nauseum. That's one of the reasons that new industries are very dynamic. It's also why new industries have higher percentages of women, gays, Jews and other groups not in the "old boy network". They don't have the entrenched bozos or the riches to support them.
The loss of scientific management and operations research and their replacement with "make people feel good about themselves" management classes has cost us all. It seems to have disappeared when industry got so successful that the costs of bad management got to be acceptable with the result that executives could hire any bozo and usually did.
There is one good answer when an employer asks, "What if I train my employees and they leave?" and that is "What if you don't train them and they stay?"
So after several hundred years we're making totally random mistakes (like cross breeding amarican and african bees) and you say we should keep doing the old random breeding techniques?
- Sexuality based not on societal pressures but on personal choices?
- Working toward goals more important than just your own self interest?
- Treating people as individuals rather than as members of a sex while not pretending that they are neuter? (just about impossible to do #1 without this)
They all have been fine in my experience and have been a lot of being human.- Free love - Seems OK.
- loss of individuality in favor of community - Heinlein's characters are individuals working toward a common goal - Seems OK
- complete gender equality while keeping distinction - Seems OK
By your standards, anyone not tied to the current sexual mores and who isn't totally self centered is a Satanist.What the &*^% does smoking have to do with power generation? Nobody's really putting thermocouples in cigarettes, are they?
(The first is logically impossible, the second is just mean spirited)
So genetically modifying a species with unknown results is OK if you use several hundred year old technology (selective cross breeding and breeding with mutant strains) but genetically modifying a species with unknown results is not OK if you use a newer technology. Interesting. Why?
The riots in Seattle were't neo-Luddite. They were neo-Anarchist and anti-corporate. They'd blow up your office whether you were high tech or low tech. I mean, they targetted Starbucks - not exactly a mecca of technology research.
For example, Dow Chemical (much as I dislike them for their napalm production) was forced out of business by the silicone breast implant health lawsuits and related press. The fact that there was no statistically significant difference in health between populations with and without the implants, try explaining statistics to a jury or a newscaster.
Are you actually saying that standing by and watching someone die when you have the means to same them at hand is a moral or ethical choice? I believe the law refers to it as "Murder by depraved indifference to human life"
In case somebody reads this wrong, kudzu isn't genetically modified or a biological mutation. It's just what happens when a non-native biological ends up with no competitors for a niche and no predators.
Yes, I do. I recall it could be summed up as "Nature Good - Technology Bad". Besides, if you remember Jurasic Park (the movie), you'd remember "Nature finds a way" as the big theme and explanation of why the dinosaurs managed to reproduce. Guess rice would do the same since its natural. (Humans, I guess, are machine made)
Yeah, but there is a certain irony...
Better still, look at Javelin Software's Javelin and Javelin Plus. Lotus Improv was an almost complete GUI clone of Javelin Plus. Unfortunatly, the parts that weren't identical weren't as well thought out.
Mac was GUI for people who could afford a very expensive new computer with almost no RAM (128K with almost none left after OS load) and no hard drive. Windows was the GUI for "The Rest of Us". When the rest of us got better hardware, Windows got overlapping windows.