The basic argument is that with $100 you could almost feed a village for a year, so why waste that sum on a laptop?
No, actually, for $100 you could buy food from other places and give it to the villagers for free, killing any chance of any of the villagers ever becoming a farmer and working to feed themselves and each other.
Or you can take a laptop, load it up with the latest in farming techniques and guides, and give it and a microloan for the seed and equipment to people who want to work, and short circuit thousands of years of shitty farming and learning how to grow things from scratch.
It'll be interesting to see IBM finally get to take all of their OS/2 Warp frustrations out on Microsoft.
That said, do we have to wait until someone from Microsoft Deutschland GmbH says this, or can we just skip straight to using the put up or shut up legal tactic against them there?
there's no way the cable and phone companies are going to upgrade everyone from 1.5Mbps (an average connection speed now) to 100Mbps (the minimum required to download a 10-15GB Hi Def movie in under an hour) before the HD players become popular.
And they're certainly not going to do it unless they're allowed to charge both the user and Apple's store for the same bandwidth. And the movie producer and director. And the lead actors and actresses. And I hear they even want to charge the janitors as well, ever since the janitors started making movies about how they get paid from movie sales.
This is the real reason why GPL v3 is so important
What can GPLv3 do against the premise of the first precedent: "It's impossible to allow people to relicense your work to others and still maintain the ability to enforce your copyright"?
As for the precedent you cite in the linked post, why do we even have termination clauses in contracts (other than "it terminates when I say it terminates" which seems to be the standard set by that precedent) if they can't do anything? Are they just an artifact of boilerplate legalese that mean nothing anymore?
As for JMRI, if they're blocked from suing on copyright infringement, they can go to court on the grounds that they believe that the source code was obtained from them (or from an automated mirror acting on their behalf), and therefore the license was obtained from them, and they are thus in position to sue for breach of contract. It'd be interesting to see if Katzer would claim they downloaded it, and then downloaded it to themselves (are they allowed to have licensed it to themselves? What about if they claim one person at the company downloaded it and another person at the company downloaded it from them? Or from a friend? Can one "conspire" to break a contract?). Otherwise, if Katzer claims they downloaded it from someone else, you go and find that lucky person and hope he's willing to play the lawyer game. Either way, it should be reasonably easy to track down all of the places hosting JMRI source code and decide who holds the other end of the license Katzer is breaching.
But the GPL (section 4, both versions) voids itself if you violate it. So by violating it, they no longer have any license from anyone to redistribute it, and the precedent still should not apply, since there is no longer a contract for them to have breached. They simply have source code that may have been given to them by a person with a license to give them the source code, but no license to further redistribute that code or software to anyone else.
It's simply the case that oil gets more and more expensive as supplies get smaller and smaller.
Well, you can say that it's simply the case that oil gets more and more expensive as supplies are perceived to get smaller and smaller. What if the "Peak Oil Conspiracy" was actually right, and we're running low now, while the "Anti-Peak Oil Conspiracy" is succeeding in convincing people that there's centuries of oil to come in order to hold down prices?
There recently was a huge find of oil in Utah. It was previously overlooked because our understanding of where to find oil was wrong. We have better tools now. We can drill deeper.
Sure, they found some new deposits, but their assumption that there MUST be more oil, they just need better drilling to find it is every bit as sound as my assumption that there MUST be treasure in my yard, I just need a better metal detector to find it. After all, I found a quarter on my sidewalk the other day.
By this time I could hope that technology would advance enough to make alternative way to propel a car compelling and cheep.
With plentiful oil, and everyone insisting that there's more oil to come, why invest in that research now?
We have never been able to reproduce oil in a lab under the circumstances that we understand to be natural.
While we haven't been able to reproduce crude oil in a lab, we have no problem turning plant matter into diesel.
Furthermore, regardless of whether oil came from long dead plants or is simply a geologic feature, there's no evidence that more is being created at the rate we are using it. In fact, abiogenic oil could lead to a worse situation than biogenic oil in the really long run, as the latter means that the carbon locked in plants and eventually buried in the ground might one day become oil again, but mantle-created oil would eventually exhaust the supply of carbon within the mantle without some way of cycling the carbon back below the crust.
will find ways to get more oil out of existing locations and find new ones.
And when we use up those, we'll find more, right? And when we use up those, we'll find more, right? And when we use up those...
The fact that at some point we will run out of oil is obvious (after all, how many times the mass of the planet can we possibly burn in oil?) People are just really bad at guessing when.
So from what I understand, the people who say the Peak Oil concept is fake do so because they believe that we will always be able to discover more oil. As technology progresses, we'll have deeper drills, better understanding of where to look, better scanning ability to actually see what's down there, and so on, for the rest of time.
I completely understand their point of view. After all, I have millions of dollars in pirate gold buried in my front yard somewhere, I'm just waiting for technology to advance to the point where I can get a metal detector to find it.
The problem is that it MAKES NO SENSE. Sure, maybe it is a real precedent. So was the whole "companies are people too" precedent. So maybe there is a Real Problem, but it will likely be "fixed" if JMRI can afford to appeal it enough.
What you're saying that this precedent says is that because Metallica allows radio stations to play (aka "redistribute") their music, I can copy their music, send copies to all my friends, post it on my website, and even rename it to Qzukkman and sell it as my own song, and Metallica can't sue me for copyright infringement because by giving someone redistribution rights, they've forfeited their right to sue me. If not, then you need to explain what makes this case "special", compared to all of the free giveaways out there today that are still protected by copyright law.
noisy followers trying to convince everyone to believe what they believe or face disaster.
That's what I said, but noooooooo, noisy followers had to whine to the EPA and make me spend $500 out of my corporation's pocket to quit pumping mercury into the water supply. Damn those noisy followers, do they think money grows on trees?! Do they not understand that coughing up black shit and dying of lung cancer is a sign of PROGRESS! Back in my grandfather's day you had to smoke plants to get lung cancer, now we have plants that smoke for everyone!
No. The license is a contract. Their violation of the license means that they are in breach of that contract, it does not mean that a valid contract does not exist.
The issue is that the license and the license alone is what permits the redistribution of the copyrighted materials. If you breach the license/contract/whatever, then without it, you have copyright infringement. Neither does receiving copyrighted materials from someone else absolve you of the restrictions placed on you by copyright law.
Unless, of course, your belief is that it is a perfectly valid position to claim that the license is invalid and you're not going to follow the restrictions on it, but the license is still valid. I'd love to see what happens to the world if that becomes a precedent. "I think my cellphone contract is bogus so I'm not going to pay you. But I expect you to continue to provide cell service for the rest of the year because we have a contract." Or maybe "I think our cellphone contract is bogus so we're turning off your service tomorrow. But I expect you to continue to pay us for the rest of the year because we have a contract, or pay the early termination penalty." Sounds fun.
Why would Black Box Voting in Renton, WA hire a local Florida webmaster, who doesn't even have a real company homepage?
It's probably a cheap shared hosting server that has multiple virtual domains on one IP address, and the "floridawebmasters.com" site is the one that comes up in a reverse resolution.
So all the skilled people become doctors and lawyers and only the unskilled become teachers? What a load of crap.
Is that so? Are you telling me that given the choice between being paid $60k a year doing what you've learned to do, and $50k a year teaching other people to do what you've learned to do, you'll take the $50k one?
Will you personally be applying for the highest paid job you think you can possibly learn?
The vast majority of people do exactly that. Many people go to college to learn whatever the "hot" profession is. A considerable number grow up not knowing what they want to do, and are guided by others along the career path.
Trying to use someone else as your ancedote to prove the other guy's point wrong is foolish, especially when you're trying to use the person who's making the point. For all you know, he believes that as he becomes more skilled, he deserves a higher pay for his talents, and most certainly WOULD apply for the highest paying job in line with those skills.
No, with a sum total of 36 votes counted. Your belief that the result of this investigation would not change the outcome of the election contradicts this statement: if there were only 36 votes period, then when this man's vote is "fixed", the race ends 16/15/1, and there will be no runoff. Either there were more than 36 votes, or the outcome changes.
>>16786443 The question is, though, should we blame the person who wrote the last valid comment (therefore ruining the fun for the rest of us), or whoever wrote the first broken comment?
The issue is that comments after 2^24 can't be replied to since their ID won't fit into the "parent" field. So the real culprit is the guy who wrote the first post that nobody could reply to.
Yes, I'll agree that it could be better, but I responding to the GGP that called Iraq a disastrous failure, which it is not.
Of course our invasion of Iraq was an amazing success. We walked in, killed a few soldiers, dispersed a few more, captured their leader, and will be executing him shortly. And now, we can't possibly be failing. After all, how can you fail when you don't have any plans to fail at?
If Iraq is a disastrous failure, what was D-Day?
A well executed, risky plan that had a high casualty rate, but also had specific goals and plans to meet those goals. Multiple countries' armies attacked specific points along a defensive line, broke through the defensive line, and marched on through to the points they were supposed to be capturing as part of the process of attacking the defending army.
Casualty rate is merely a measure of the difference in enemy weaponry and training versus your armor and training. I can capture the hill outside my office building without even firing a shot, but doing so is rather meaningless, even if nobody died in the invasion.
Thats up to the people who got elected, and your definition of "better". They could be DeLay-style partisan hacks and spend the next two years doing nothing but blocking the Republicans, and nothing will get done ("that government which governs least, governs best"). They could be all too happy to help Bush and the Republicans sink the government ledger in never before seen levels of red ink. They might even manage to count to three and find a new plan for Iraq that was neither "stay the course" nor "cut and run".
Theoretically, the foreign companies should easily out-compete the American-run companies because they probably don't pay their executives tens of millions of dollars in compensation like the idiotic American companies do.
Hmm, this sounds familiar. I can't quite... oh right, cars!
That right there is the future of IT in the US, and quite possibly many other job sectors as well.
I knew why the hell I was voting, but my choices were all pretty darn terrible anyway.
This lesser of the evils thing needs to go. Time to organize a new party to replace the Republican party since they've gone off the deep end and the Libertarians have failed to organize to fill their conservative shoes.
Why spend a 100 million developing a new computer chip when six months from now a competitor can have a knock off on the market and under cut your price because they don't have to repay development costs
Why spend 100 million dollars developing a new computer chip when you can lock up the market for 20 years with your top of the line, state of the art 8086 chip?
Slashdot Mirror
The basic argument is that with $100 you could almost feed a village for a year, so why waste that sum on a laptop?
No, actually, for $100 you could buy food from other places and give it to the villagers for free, killing any chance of any of the villagers ever becoming a farmer and working to feed themselves and each other.
Or you can take a laptop, load it up with the latest in farming techniques and guides, and give it and a microloan for the seed and equipment to people who want to work, and short circuit thousands of years of shitty farming and learning how to grow things from scratch.
It'll be interesting to see IBM finally get to take all of their OS/2 Warp frustrations out on Microsoft.
That said, do we have to wait until someone from Microsoft Deutschland GmbH says this, or can we just skip straight to using the put up or shut up legal tactic against them there?
there's no way the cable and phone companies are going to upgrade everyone from 1.5Mbps (an average connection speed now) to 100Mbps (the minimum required to download a 10-15GB Hi Def movie in under an hour) before the HD players become popular.
And they're certainly not going to do it unless they're allowed to charge both the user and Apple's store for the same bandwidth. And the movie producer and director. And the lead actors and actresses. And I hear they even want to charge the janitors as well, ever since the janitors started making movies about how they get paid from movie sales.
This is the real reason why GPL v3 is so important
What can GPLv3 do against the premise of the first precedent: "It's impossible to allow people to relicense your work to others and still maintain the ability to enforce your copyright"?
As for the precedent you cite in the linked post, why do we even have termination clauses in contracts (other than "it terminates when I say it terminates" which seems to be the standard set by that precedent) if they can't do anything? Are they just an artifact of boilerplate legalese that mean nothing anymore?
As for JMRI, if they're blocked from suing on copyright infringement, they can go to court on the grounds that they believe that the source code was obtained from them (or from an automated mirror acting on their behalf), and therefore the license was obtained from them, and they are thus in position to sue for breach of contract. It'd be interesting to see if Katzer would claim they downloaded it, and then downloaded it to themselves (are they allowed to have licensed it to themselves? What about if they claim one person at the company downloaded it and another person at the company downloaded it from them? Or from a friend? Can one "conspire" to break a contract?). Otherwise, if Katzer claims they downloaded it from someone else, you go and find that lucky person and hope he's willing to play the lawyer game. Either way, it should be reasonably easy to track down all of the places hosting JMRI source code and decide who holds the other end of the license Katzer is breaching.
OK, so it IS the license that makes it different.
But the GPL (section 4, both versions) voids itself if you violate it. So by violating it, they no longer have any license from anyone to redistribute it, and the precedent still should not apply, since there is no longer a contract for them to have breached. They simply have source code that may have been given to them by a person with a license to give them the source code, but no license to further redistribute that code or software to anyone else.
It's simply the case that oil gets more and more expensive as supplies get smaller and smaller.
Well, you can say that it's simply the case that oil gets more and more expensive as supplies are perceived to get smaller and smaller. What if the "Peak Oil Conspiracy" was actually right, and we're running low now, while the "Anti-Peak Oil Conspiracy" is succeeding in convincing people that there's centuries of oil to come in order to hold down prices?
There recently was a huge find of oil in Utah. It was previously overlooked because our understanding of where to find oil was wrong. We have better tools now. We can drill deeper.
Sure, they found some new deposits, but their assumption that there MUST be more oil, they just need better drilling to find it is every bit as sound as my assumption that there MUST be treasure in my yard, I just need a better metal detector to find it. After all, I found a quarter on my sidewalk the other day.
By this time I could hope that technology would advance enough to make alternative way to propel a car compelling and cheep.
With plentiful oil, and everyone insisting that there's more oil to come, why invest in that research now?
We have never been able to reproduce oil in a lab under the circumstances that we understand to be natural.
While we haven't been able to reproduce crude oil in a lab, we have no problem turning plant matter into diesel.
Furthermore, regardless of whether oil came from long dead plants or is simply a geologic feature, there's no evidence that more is being created at the rate we are using it. In fact, abiogenic oil could lead to a worse situation than biogenic oil in the really long run, as the latter means that the carbon locked in plants and eventually buried in the ground might one day become oil again, but mantle-created oil would eventually exhaust the supply of carbon within the mantle without some way of cycling the carbon back below the crust.
will find ways to get more oil out of existing locations and find new ones.
And when we use up those, we'll find more, right? And when we use up those, we'll find more, right? And when we use up those...
The fact that at some point we will run out of oil is obvious (after all, how many times the mass of the planet can we possibly burn in oil?) People are just really bad at guessing when.
So from what I understand, the people who say the Peak Oil concept is fake do so because they believe that we will always be able to discover more oil. As technology progresses, we'll have deeper drills, better understanding of where to look, better scanning ability to actually see what's down there, and so on, for the rest of time.
I completely understand their point of view. After all, I have millions of dollars in pirate gold buried in my front yard somewhere, I'm just waiting for technology to advance to the point where I can get a metal detector to find it.
Arr!
The problem is that it MAKES NO SENSE. Sure, maybe it is a real precedent. So was the whole "companies are people too" precedent. So maybe there is a Real Problem, but it will likely be "fixed" if JMRI can afford to appeal it enough.
What you're saying that this precedent says is that because Metallica allows radio stations to play (aka "redistribute") their music, I can copy their music, send copies to all my friends, post it on my website, and even rename it to Qzukkman and sell it as my own song, and Metallica can't sue me for copyright infringement because by giving someone redistribution rights, they've forfeited their right to sue me. If not, then you need to explain what makes this case "special", compared to all of the free giveaways out there today that are still protected by copyright law.
noisy followers trying to convince everyone to believe what they believe or face disaster.
That's what I said, but noooooooo, noisy followers had to whine to the EPA and make me spend $500 out of my corporation's pocket to quit pumping mercury into the water supply. Damn those noisy followers, do they think money grows on trees?! Do they not understand that coughing up black shit and dying of lung cancer is a sign of PROGRESS! Back in my grandfather's day you had to smoke plants to get lung cancer, now we have plants that smoke for everyone!
No. The license is a contract. Their violation of the license means that they are in breach of that contract, it does not mean that a valid contract does not exist.
The issue is that the license and the license alone is what permits the redistribution of the copyrighted materials. If you breach the license/contract/whatever, then without it, you have copyright infringement. Neither does receiving copyrighted materials from someone else absolve you of the restrictions placed on you by copyright law.
Unless, of course, your belief is that it is a perfectly valid position to claim that the license is invalid and you're not going to follow the restrictions on it, but the license is still valid. I'd love to see what happens to the world if that becomes a precedent. "I think my cellphone contract is bogus so I'm not going to pay you. But I expect you to continue to provide cell service for the rest of the year because we have a contract." Or maybe "I think our cellphone contract is bogus so we're turning off your service tomorrow. But I expect you to continue to pay us for the rest of the year because we have a contract, or pay the early termination penalty." Sounds fun.
Why would Black Box Voting in Renton, WA hire a local Florida webmaster, who doesn't even have a real company homepage?
It's probably a cheap shared hosting server that has multiple virtual domains on one IP address, and the "floridawebmasters.com" site is the one that comes up in a reverse resolution.
So all the skilled people become doctors and lawyers and only the unskilled become teachers? What a load of crap.
Is that so? Are you telling me that given the choice between being paid $60k a year doing what you've learned to do, and $50k a year teaching other people to do what you've learned to do, you'll take the $50k one?
Will you personally be applying for the highest paid job you think you can possibly learn?
The vast majority of people do exactly that. Many people go to college to learn whatever the "hot" profession is. A considerable number grow up not knowing what they want to do, and are guided by others along the career path.
Trying to use someone else as your ancedote to prove the other guy's point wrong is foolish, especially when you're trying to use the person who's making the point. For all you know, he believes that as he becomes more skilled, he deserves a higher pay for his talents, and most certainly WOULD apply for the highest paying job in line with those skills.
with a sum total of 36 votes cast.
No, with a sum total of 36 votes counted. Your belief that the result of this investigation would not change the outcome of the election contradicts this statement: if there were only 36 votes period, then when this man's vote is "fixed", the race ends 16/15/1, and there will be no runoff. Either there were more than 36 votes, or the outcome changes.
>>16786443
The question is, though, should we blame the person who wrote the last valid comment (therefore ruining the fun for the rest of us), or whoever wrote the first broken comment?
The issue is that comments after 2^24 can't be replied to since their ID won't fit into the "parent" field. So the real culprit is the guy who wrote the first post that nobody could reply to.
Yes, I'll agree that it could be better, but I responding to the GGP that called Iraq a disastrous failure, which it is not.
Of course our invasion of Iraq was an amazing success. We walked in, killed a few soldiers, dispersed a few more, captured their leader, and will be executing him shortly. And now, we can't possibly be failing. After all, how can you fail when you don't have any plans to fail at?
If Iraq is a disastrous failure, what was D-Day?
A well executed, risky plan that had a high casualty rate, but also had specific goals and plans to meet those goals. Multiple countries' armies attacked specific points along a defensive line, broke through the defensive line, and marched on through to the points they were supposed to be capturing as part of the process of attacking the defending army.
Casualty rate is merely a measure of the difference in enemy weaponry and training versus your armor and training. I can capture the hill outside my office building without even firing a shot, but doing so is rather meaningless, even if nobody died in the invasion.
Bush still has the VETO stamp. Its been sitting in his desk draw barely used for the last 6 years.
Unfortunately it's been sitting in there next to his stack of signing statements which HAVE been heavily used over the last 6 years.
If nothing else, maybe the new Congress will actually put this signing statement bullshit in check.
Thats up to the people who got elected, and your definition of "better". They could be DeLay-style partisan hacks and spend the next two years doing nothing but blocking the Republicans, and nothing will get done ("that government which governs least, governs best"). They could be all too happy to help Bush and the Republicans sink the government ledger in never before seen levels of red ink. They might even manage to count to three and find a new plan for Iraq that was neither "stay the course" nor "cut and run".
In other words, "we'll see".
So basically, nobody else can use tags to label files. Totally original thinking from the folks at flickr. *cough*
;)
No, it just means you can't tag a file "interesting"
Theoretically, the foreign companies should easily out-compete the American-run companies because they probably don't pay their executives tens of millions of dollars in compensation like the idiotic American companies do.
Hmm, this sounds familiar. I can't quite... oh right, cars!
That right there is the future of IT in the US, and quite possibly many other job sectors as well.
I knew why the hell I was voting, but my choices were all pretty darn terrible anyway.
This lesser of the evils thing needs to go. Time to organize a new party to replace the Republican party since they've gone off the deep end and the Libertarians have failed to organize to fill their conservative shoes.
All that would do is cause large companies to move their "home" location to some obscure 3rd world country
So? Most of the larger ones already have, to get out of paying taxes.
Why spend a 100 million developing a new computer chip when six months from now a competitor can have a knock off on the market and under cut your price because they don't have to repay development costs
Why spend 100 million dollars developing a new computer chip when you can lock up the market for 20 years with your top of the line, state of the art 8086 chip?