Is a ruler a belief system? Are chin-ups a belief system?
I think it's a tool. A software tool, to be precise.
It is the belief that I can presume a falsifiable theory to be true until it is proven false.
No, it's that fact that falsified theories have inconsistencies.
You shouldn't believe or presume anything, you merely go about using (testing) the theory until it's wrong.
You don't have to believe your ruler is correct, you can use it regardless, check its consistency, operate on the assumptions that it is not correct, etc.
Religion is far from having the 'corner' on bad ideas and what you call 'bullshit'.
Yes, but it's organized. Stupid usually comes in individually-sized packets.
I am getting very tired of this kind of blanket Slashdot condemnation of 'religion'
Has it occurred to you that we're just as sick of you? No matter how many times someone explains how stupid religion is there's another of you, claiming that this type of stupid is special and we need to respect it. As if Flat-Earthers got uppity.
(which one by the way? There's thousands including Judaism, Hinduism, Sekes and other favorites of 'progressives') as being for only the brain-dead.
Which ones don't involve faith? Those are the ones that aren't harmful. Every other religion is worthless, even if new-agers like it.
But even science makes just as many mistakes.
Here's where you go far off the deep end. Science itself can't make mistakes. Sure, people do often believe untested hypotheses but that's not science making them do that, that's whatever makes you believe in a god.
It learns from them and goes on. Just as many religions have too.
So much for the word of god. Turns out he thought the sun rotated around the Earth. Revise, revise, re-invent.
Or perhaps I should keep bringing up the mistakes of science every time you want to make a point and then blanketly call all scientists idiots and those that follow what they've done as mindless drones spewing the results of studies they didn't even do themselves.
Oh no! If Einstein was wrong about something else, maybe he was wrong about everything!? Maybe we shouldn't have just taken his word. Oh, wait, we didn't.
I am even more aware that if you don't financially support things you enjoy, they may disappear.
Sure.
How often do you write a check to the family of whoever coined the phrase 'content creators'?
First off, I've never received a dime for using the phrase content creator.
You benefit from its use. It illustrates points you want to make. You could say a generic "someone who created content" but that doesn't have the same polish, nor does it imply a creator/consumer dichotomy. Without that, how do you paint this as a greed thing?
Common sense, legislation, and a free market govern what constitutes actual original content. A common two-word phrase that is used ubiquitously is not the same as a movie, a CD or a video game.
That's just what seems reasonable to you on the surface. But why shouldn't people who create phrases like that benefit when you use them to achieve your goals, especially where money would be involved?
Throw in a few 'piracy' of 'intellectual property' phrases and you've made it sound like those people who merely don't support patents are vicious murderers.
Poor analogies and hyperbole are only tools that you hope will obfuscate the issue.
Exactly.
People who produce content that others digest deserve to get paid.
Does the goatse.cx guy get paid? Or the cameraman? For the number of views, or intentional views? Does the same standard apply to the makers of Gigli? Should he own the rights to derivative works?
Do they deserve full opening-night rates, or some sort of pro-rated sum based on reviews? How much does a screen-shot in a textbook, illustrating bad technique, cost?
Does Ted Bundy deserve royalties from the news/movies about him and his actions, etc.
Let's stop using words like deserve and quit making hard and fast rules. Instead, how about just remembering "if I care to see this remain, how do I help?"
Pft. Not at all. I share to at least 250% when torrenting!
Really though, who is the leech? The person who hears and song and wants to share it with their friend, or the person who through legal means totally and unwillingly financed by masses has obtained a government monopoly on that sound?
It might have made sense when the only way to duplicate things, books, records, etc, was in a studio and that meant that copying was someone specifically taking distribution profits from the right people. When someone's making money, sure, why not conspire to make sure the author gets some.
But today recordings aren't the domain of specialized studios. Since the 70s tape recorders were common and today I've got five nearby devices that record audio/video - not counting actual cameras.
For there to be laws that criminalize recording or sharing environmental sounds (which often include radios, movies, etc) is just ridiculous. Times change.
Get your tax collectors and lawyers out of our lives, leech!
You mention that Targeted advertising is the worst because it means they've found you. But what exactly are the implications of that? Who is the "they" and what does "found you" mean to me?
Keep reading...
I try (a bit) to avoid this tracking as a smokescreen for those who do have something to hide. I'd hate to be in the USA and afraid of losing medical coverage, trying to secretly buy a book about cancer...
It means you're leaking secrets. No matter why you mind, or even if you don't, it's like leaking oil.
is this something that companies are doing? Are they actually buying information from grocery stores to analyze what kind of items you're buying and basing decisions on that as compared to your actual work performance? It seems like something that is perhaps technically feasible but not actually practical.
Who'd have thought it'd be worth keeping track of your purchases by loyalty card instead of just watching what goes across the till? Who'd have thought there'd be mega-companies now that just report failed private financial transactions to other companies for credit-rating purposes? Medical and employment are fairly heavily regulated so they'll probably be last.
Resist, hide from, or confound data collection to make it easier for those who need to hide. Like using encryption all the time to prevent the odd message from standing out.
As for advertising itself... I try to avoid it all (targeted and not) because it doesn't benefit me. Not that knowing about some new product couldn't be helpful, but when you wrap state of the art manipulation around that... it's just not as desirable. I'll wait and hear about the new thing second-hand, thanks.
I use the one form of advertising I wish to see continue - on-topic text ads. When I want something online I just go to some search engine and take the most useful ad - one that sounds like the person speaking it is fairly inoffensive.
That's the problem. If people had control I don't think they'd suit up and ship themselves and their tank off to Afghanistan to chase Osama... They might want proof, and an idea of how going there could help.
Those rules are always funny. As if someone forgets how to do the work simply because they ignore the EULA...
Funny though, in that they only bite the hands that try to play nicely with MS, Oracle, etc. The people without the certs aren't bound to any of that crap.
When we say it sucks to be an MCSE, we mean it.
(Can you imagine losing your MCSE because you pulled your HD out of a dead computer and installed it in another - it's a violation of the retail EULA... Suckers.)
That's one major thing holding back any sort of licensing. Microsoft/etc is going to be all over it and turn not-saying-anything-bad-about-MS into one of the core principles.
How often do you write a check to the family of whoever coined the phrase 'content creators'? And yet you shamelessly use a phrase they invented to grub for money. Similarly, the person who conflated murder on the high seas with copying a CD - you own them big.
It's amazing how only some types of content count to you.
That means piracy is the wrong term, because certainly the pirates didn't just duplicate your stuff and leave..
That's also why your house analogy is worthless here. If you build a house and it is taken away you're out raw materials and a house. If you write a song and I sing it, you're out nothing.
What, you can't engineer a cushy life writing music that way? Tough. It's how the world works - sounds can be copied - and I don't care to try to distort reality for you. Get a job that doesn't require the government to protect your secrets.
Browsing with Flashblock is almost indistinguishable from browsing without. There are about three times as many sites that fail horribly (blank page, etc) but it's largely indistinguishable from other errors. There's always another site that works without Flash just a click or two away...
Exactly, otherwise all this affiliate ID crap is just more tracking.
I already strip affiliate IDs out of links before I click on them, unless they specifically offer me a deal. Why should I be tracked for their benefit?
The web I want is one were actual users write pages, review book/tools/etc. If you're getting paid to do it, even if you just see it as offsetting costs, you aren't coming at it from the right headspace - you'd do a review to get more hits, not because it's what you happened to be reading.
That's the kind of shit Amazon and publisher love, because by promising affiliate earnings (and more on hot items) they drive the buzz.
Buzz I then have to strip out to get an accurate view.
Thanks a lot advertisers, but please pack up everything you think you provide and go do it over Television. Goodbye.
You want the store to know there are expectant mothers shopping there, but not necessarily to know WHO, and certainly not for your wife's company to deny her a promotion because they're afraid she's leaving soon.
Targeted advertising is the worst, because it means they've found you. Spam advertising is the best because you can easily ignore it and laugh about their wasted money. (This assumes you can use the net to find things when you want them.)
Even though I have nothing to keep secret I try (a bit) to avoid this tracking as a smokescreen for those who do have something to hide. I'd hate to be in the USA and afraid of losing medical coverage, trying to secretly buy a book about cancer...
You don't care about feeding the families of those programmers who are striving to make a product for a market
And you don't care about "the children", the endangered California Condor, or starving fans of Oscar Wilde.
What? You never claimed to?
Huh, funny that.
nor do you care for their users for whom such software would not exist without financial incentives.
I dislike the idea of people who don't share tools. Why would I like companies that are like that?
If there's a market it'll get filled.
There would be a lot less software written if you were forced to share your source code, and I totally fail to see how less software helps users in any way.
Totally specious. If everyone were forced to use my code despite the GPL it would be because my code was so amazing that the benefits outweighed the obligations. It's like complaining about the Quake4 engine being pricey.
In "the real world", more people use closed-source programs than open-source programs.
Exactly. They're stuck on closed systems, with app-stores that offer nothing but more closed software. Nobody pays to register freeware for sale so most people never even see it as an option.
Because "all you types" seem to be obsessed with this complete fallacy that someone will grab the open-source, close it, and then try to prevent you from using the open source version. That's just a fantasy
Dunno, we types see GPLed software, given to anyone who'll pass on their derivative code, as being as free as it ever needs to be.
Then comes along one of you, those for whom "share" is too strict a rule.
So, no I don't think you're a fantasy. But I can't understand the greed that is required to demand that not only do I give you the source, but that I let you keep derivative works to yourself.
If you're going to hoard it to yourself, make it yourself.
that you use to justify your belief that closed source is evil.
I'd have to believe in a god.
I'm fine with closed source though, but go write it yourself.
I said if I wanted to build a product for my company.
Like anyone cares about your specific company. You're anti-GPL so of course you work somewhere that shares your feelings.
All I'm saying is that my hypothetical codebase can be monetized by many different companies already. That you've made business decisions which preclude yours is not really a big deal.
All you care about is getting to use everyone else's hard-earned work for free.
Not for free! As the license fee for one hypothetical GPL library.
And I don't just want to use it, I want the source, and I want others to have it too so that I don't have to fix as many bugs in it if I do use it.
Why are you so greedy that you would demand my code? I do not demand or nor do I take it from you without your permission, I only use what is offered
No, you demand more than is offered.
I offered a trade, my code for yours, with continuezees.
I'm fine with you not accepting the GPL. No demands. Keep and use the software, learn from the code, give it out to others even, no hard feelings.
This is why the LGPL or MIT or BSD license are so much more useful for end users than the GPL; the code is still open for those users who care, and commercial entities can use the code to satisfy the demands of their customers, and everyone wins.
Yeah, that's why you can patch your own Windows 7 install by applying a fix from your security vendor (or yourself) and recompiling.
Looking at old BSD code isn't going to help a modern MS user, primarily because they can't change the source and test it, so I disagree.
When you look at how Microsoft has maneuvered the users and industry I
Whose opinion is relevant for anything? You read what the reporter wrote to find out what happened, and then knowing (as much as there is to know) you read the commentators (professional and otherwise) to see how they interpret these same facts.
But more and more, random cameras capture a lot of footage and we don't need to employ a fallible witness at all. At that, what random 20 bloggers wouldn't make a better "news" channel than Fox?
The point is to not confuse reporting with anything else. Nobody who wasn't there can report. It's not a professional/amateur thing.
Regardless of how it got there, you told someone not to anthropomorphize information, with a straight face. Do you actually think he was? You can't be serious, can you?
Attacking you libelously gives some lawyer its wings, or something like that.
Was that post long enough? You could have ranted on about some Microsoft thing longer... I didn't see anything connecting me with the Illuminati, or the guys broadcasting mind control rays into your fillings. You're obviously not seeing the big picture.
But yes, you cleverly placed me as symbolset's sock-puppet. He cleverly opened this Slashdot account years previous to his main account, and made thousands of unrelated postings, just to build a false front of trust. But then, basking in the glory of his own genius he posts an insult to you from the wrong account and you finally put together all the pieces. Well done, you're one step closer to the ultimate truth!
Government monopolies started with royalty rewarding followers with being the only people allowed to do X, sometimes exploit a territory, sometimes a technology or idea. You seem to think that old ideas have power, so I was pointing out older ideas you might also like.
If however you choose to join the world of the evidence-based, there has not been much study to show that patents/etc help the economy as a whole. Outside of situation imposed by the government itself (FDA testing, etc) there really isn't a demonstrated need for this protectionism.
But there are a lot of rent collectors who'll tell you the world will end without it...
But forcing all derivative works to be open is no better than forcing all derivative works to be closed.
In your morality, maybe. But in the real world, forcing source to be open helps users far more than hurts them.
No one is stopping you from playing with the code. If you fork an open-source project and close that source, the original still exists.
Why do all you types say this, as if it isn't clear?
"What? No?! When someone uses my source my copy doesn't go away? Thanks Mister, I never knew that!"
Yes, but it doesn't acquire new features on its own, just sitting there.
If I am building a product for my company to sell, I have to avoid GPL code like it was HIV positive. That can hurt the user...
Yeah, because nobody ever built a product around an open product before.
Sure, it doesn't fit all business models but neither does paying for a $10k library.
Seriously, do most users care more if A) the program works or B) if the source is open?
Seriously, do most drivers care more about A) The low-resistance features of their car's fuel-feedback wiring, or B) The specific wire-weave pattern in their radial tires? Quick!
No, seriously, is that program more likely to trap users' data in a proprietary mess if the source is open or closed?
What you want, and that you don't feel your freedom to close code is being respected, is clear. But I and other GPL users just don't care. Or, if we do, we care to thwart you more than help you, because you always consider yourselves and never your users.
I am certain you could have learned to program by reading a different set of source code had the one that you read not been available.
Yes, but it wouldn't have been as nice and convenient. If a user of your program was curious as to how it worked they wouldn't be able to. Not very helpful.
Yeah, what started out as payoffs to powerful nobles certainly couldn't have become entrenched in modern law, despite being unjust and counter-productive.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure sure, blame the game not the player. To some degree it's even true.
But the telephone patent thing just illustrates the crap of patents. Poor guy, invents something independently and doesn't get to use it.
The scientific method is a belief system.
Is a ruler a belief system? Are chin-ups a belief system?
I think it's a tool. A software tool, to be precise.
It is the belief that I can presume a falsifiable theory to be true until it is proven false.
No, it's that fact that falsified theories have inconsistencies.
You shouldn't believe or presume anything, you merely go about using (testing) the theory until it's wrong.
You don't have to believe your ruler is correct, you can use it regardless, check its consistency, operate on the assumptions that it is not correct, etc.
Religion is far from having the 'corner' on bad ideas and what you call 'bullshit'.
Yes, but it's organized. Stupid usually comes in individually-sized packets.
I am getting very tired of this kind of blanket Slashdot condemnation of 'religion'
Has it occurred to you that we're just as sick of you? No matter how many times someone explains how stupid religion is there's another of you, claiming that this type of stupid is special and we need to respect it. As if Flat-Earthers got uppity.
(which one by the way? There's thousands including Judaism, Hinduism, Sekes and other favorites of 'progressives') as being for only the brain-dead.
Which ones don't involve faith? Those are the ones that aren't harmful. Every other religion is worthless, even if new-agers like it.
But even science makes just as many mistakes.
Here's where you go far off the deep end. Science itself can't make mistakes. Sure, people do often believe untested hypotheses but that's not science making them do that, that's whatever makes you believe in a god.
It learns from them and goes on. Just as many religions have too.
So much for the word of god. Turns out he thought the sun rotated around the Earth. Revise, revise, re-invent.
Or perhaps I should keep bringing up the mistakes of science every time you want to make a point and then blanketly call all scientists idiots and those that follow what they've done as mindless drones spewing the results of studies they didn't even do themselves.
Oh no! If Einstein was wrong about something else, maybe he was wrong about everything!? Maybe we shouldn't have just taken his word. Oh, wait, we didn't.
It's not a popularity game.
I am even more aware that if you don't financially support things you enjoy, they may disappear.
Sure.
How often do you write a check to the family of whoever coined the phrase 'content creators'?
First off, I've never received a dime for using the phrase content creator.
You benefit from its use. It illustrates points you want to make. You could say a generic "someone who created content" but that doesn't have the same polish, nor does it imply a creator/consumer dichotomy. Without that, how do you paint this as a greed thing?
Common sense, legislation, and a free market govern what constitutes actual original content. A common two-word phrase that is used ubiquitously is not the same as a movie, a CD or a video game.
That's just what seems reasonable to you on the surface. But why shouldn't people who create phrases like that benefit when you use them to achieve your goals, especially where money would be involved?
Throw in a few 'piracy' of 'intellectual property' phrases and you've made it sound like those people who merely don't support patents are vicious murderers.
Poor analogies and hyperbole are only tools that you hope will obfuscate the issue.
Exactly.
People who produce content that others digest deserve to get paid.
Does the goatse.cx guy get paid? Or the cameraman? For the number of views, or intentional views? Does the same standard apply to the makers of Gigli? Should he own the rights to derivative works?
Do they deserve full opening-night rates, or some sort of pro-rated sum based on reviews? How much does a screen-shot in a textbook, illustrating bad technique, cost?
Does Ted Bundy deserve royalties from the news/movies about him and his actions, etc.
Let's stop using words like deserve and quit making hard and fast rules. Instead, how about just remembering "if I care to see this remain, how do I help?"
Pft. Not at all. I share to at least 250% when torrenting!
Really though, who is the leech? The person who hears and song and wants to share it with their friend, or the person who through legal means totally and unwillingly financed by masses has obtained a government monopoly on that sound?
It might have made sense when the only way to duplicate things, books, records, etc, was in a studio and that meant that copying was someone specifically taking distribution profits from the right people. When someone's making money, sure, why not conspire to make sure the author gets some.
But today recordings aren't the domain of specialized studios. Since the 70s tape recorders were common and today I've got five nearby devices that record audio/video - not counting actual cameras.
For there to be laws that criminalize recording or sharing environmental sounds (which often include radios, movies, etc) is just ridiculous. Times change.
Get your tax collectors and lawyers out of our lives, leech!
You mention that Targeted advertising is the worst because it means they've found you. But what exactly are the implications of that? Who is the "they" and what does "found you" mean to me?
Keep reading...
I try (a bit) to avoid this tracking as a smokescreen for those who do have something to hide. I'd hate to be in the USA and afraid of losing medical coverage, trying to secretly buy a book about cancer...
It means you're leaking secrets. No matter why you mind, or even if you don't, it's like leaking oil.
is this something that companies are doing? Are they actually buying information from grocery stores to analyze what kind of items you're buying and basing decisions on that as compared to your actual work performance? It seems like something that is perhaps technically feasible but not actually practical.
Who'd have thought it'd be worth keeping track of your purchases by loyalty card instead of just watching what goes across the till? Who'd have thought there'd be mega-companies now that just report failed private financial transactions to other companies for credit-rating purposes? Medical and employment are fairly heavily regulated so they'll probably be last.
Resist, hide from, or confound data collection to make it easier for those who need to hide. Like using encryption all the time to prevent the odd message from standing out.
As for advertising itself... I try to avoid it all (targeted and not) because it doesn't benefit me. Not that knowing about some new product couldn't be helpful, but when you wrap state of the art manipulation around that ... it's just not as desirable. I'll wait and hear about the new thing second-hand, thanks.
I use the one form of advertising I wish to see continue - on-topic text ads. When I want something online I just go to some search engine and take the most useful ad - one that sounds like the person speaking it is fairly inoffensive.
It's somewhat tolerable while you have a sane monarch, but at best it conditions people to obey a monarch setting them up for failure.
Anything less than participatory democracy is slavery - we shouldn't get hung up along the way just because of romantic traditions.
That's the problem. If people had control I don't think they'd suit up and ship themselves and their tank off to Afghanistan to chase Osama... They might want proof, and an idea of how going there could help.
Those rules are always funny. As if someone forgets how to do the work simply because they ignore the EULA...
Funny though, in that they only bite the hands that try to play nicely with MS, Oracle, etc. The people without the certs aren't bound to any of that crap.
When we say it sucks to be an MCSE, we mean it.
(Can you imagine losing your MCSE because you pulled your HD out of a dead computer and installed it in another - it's a violation of the retail EULA... Suckers.)
That's one major thing holding back any sort of licensing. Microsoft/etc is going to be all over it and turn not-saying-anything-bad-about-MS into one of the core principles.
How often do you write a check to the family of whoever coined the phrase 'content creators'? And yet you shamelessly use a phrase they invented to grub for money. Similarly, the person who conflated murder on the high seas with copying a CD - you own them big.
It's amazing how only some types of content count to you.
Do you think writers are overpaid? What do you base this on?
I know they want to be.
If they sold a chair they'd be getting compensated once despite people enjoying that chair for years.
But they write something and they think they should be paid every time it's experienced...
Copying doesn't make the original go away.
That means piracy is the wrong term, because certainly the pirates didn't just duplicate your stuff and leave..
That's also why your house analogy is worthless here. If you build a house and it is taken away you're out raw materials and a house. If you write a song and I sing it, you're out nothing.
What, you can't engineer a cushy life writing music that way? Tough. It's how the world works - sounds can be copied - and I don't care to try to distort reality for you. Get a job that doesn't require the government to protect your secrets.
I thought Flash was malware before...
Browsing with Flashblock is almost indistinguishable from browsing without. There are about three times as many sites that fail horribly (blank page, etc) but it's largely indistinguishable from other errors. There's always another site that works without Flash just a click or two away...
Exactly, otherwise all this affiliate ID crap is just more tracking.
I already strip affiliate IDs out of links before I click on them, unless they specifically offer me a deal. Why should I be tracked for their benefit?
The web I want is one were actual users write pages, review book/tools/etc. If you're getting paid to do it, even if you just see it as offsetting costs, you aren't coming at it from the right headspace - you'd do a review to get more hits, not because it's what you happened to be reading.
That's the kind of shit Amazon and publisher love, because by promising affiliate earnings (and more on hot items) they drive the buzz.
Buzz I then have to strip out to get an accurate view.
Thanks a lot advertisers, but please pack up everything you think you provide and go do it over Television. Goodbye.
Wow, that's why turning off no-script is such a bad idea.
Javascript is GREAT, for things that add (in my view, not yours) to my web browsing experience.
Besides, I like skipping sites that can't even make their front-page standards compliant. It's a great reason to ignore them.
You want the store to know there are expectant mothers shopping there, but not necessarily to know WHO, and certainly not for your wife's company to deny her a promotion because they're afraid she's leaving soon.
Targeted advertising is the worst, because it means they've found you. Spam advertising is the best because you can easily ignore it and laugh about their wasted money. (This assumes you can use the net to find things when you want them.)
Even though I have nothing to keep secret I try (a bit) to avoid this tracking as a smokescreen for those who do have something to hide. I'd hate to be in the USA and afraid of losing medical coverage, trying to secretly buy a book about cancer...
You don't care about feeding the families of those programmers who are striving to make a product for a market
And you don't care about "the children", the endangered California Condor, or starving fans of Oscar Wilde.
What? You never claimed to?
Huh, funny that.
nor do you care for their users for whom such software would not exist without financial incentives.
I dislike the idea of people who don't share tools. Why would I like companies that are like that?
If there's a market it'll get filled.
There would be a lot less software written if you were forced to share your source code, and I totally fail to see how less software helps users in any way.
Totally specious. If everyone were forced to use my code despite the GPL it would be because my code was so amazing that the benefits outweighed the obligations. It's like complaining about the Quake4 engine being pricey.
In "the real world", more people use closed-source programs than open-source programs.
Exactly. They're stuck on closed systems, with app-stores that offer nothing but more closed software. Nobody pays to register freeware for sale so most people never even see it as an option.
Because "all you types" seem to be obsessed with this complete fallacy that someone will grab the open-source, close it, and then try to prevent you from using the open source version. That's just a fantasy
Dunno, we types see GPLed software, given to anyone who'll pass on their derivative code, as being as free as it ever needs to be.
Then comes along one of you, those for whom "share" is too strict a rule.
So, no I don't think you're a fantasy. But I can't understand the greed that is required to demand that not only do I give you the source, but that I let you keep derivative works to yourself.
If you're going to hoard it to yourself, make it yourself.
that you use to justify your belief that closed source is evil.
I'd have to believe in a god.
I'm fine with closed source though, but go write it yourself.
I said if I wanted to build a product for my company.
Like anyone cares about your specific company. You're anti-GPL so of course you work somewhere that shares your feelings.
All I'm saying is that my hypothetical codebase can be monetized by many different companies already. That you've made business decisions which preclude yours is not really a big deal.
All you care about is getting to use everyone else's hard-earned work for free.
Not for free! As the license fee for one hypothetical GPL library.
And I don't just want to use it, I want the source, and I want others to have it too so that I don't have to fix as many bugs in it if I do use it.
Why are you so greedy that you would demand my code? I do not demand or nor do I take it from you without your permission, I only use what is offered
No, you demand more than is offered.
I offered a trade, my code for yours, with continuezees.
I'm fine with you not accepting the GPL. No demands. Keep and use the software, learn from the code, give it out to others even, no hard feelings.
This is why the LGPL or MIT or BSD license are so much more useful for end users than the GPL; the code is still open for those users who care, and commercial entities can use the code to satisfy the demands of their customers, and everyone wins.
Yeah, that's why you can patch your own Windows 7 install by applying a fix from your security vendor (or yourself) and recompiling.
Looking at old BSD code isn't going to help a modern MS user, primarily because they can't change the source and test it, so I disagree.
When you look at how Microsoft has maneuvered the users and industry I
Whose opinion is relevant for anything? You read what the reporter wrote to find out what happened, and then knowing (as much as there is to know) you read the commentators (professional and otherwise) to see how they interpret these same facts.
But more and more, random cameras capture a lot of footage and we don't need to employ a fallible witness at all. At that, what random 20 bloggers wouldn't make a better "news" channel than Fox?
The point is to not confuse reporting with anything else. Nobody who wasn't there can report. It's not a professional/amateur thing.
Only hacker democracy. :)
Regardless of how it got there, you told someone not to anthropomorphize information, with a straight face. Do you actually think he was? You can't be serious, can you?
Attacking you libelously gives some lawyer its wings, or something like that.
Was that post long enough? You could have ranted on about some Microsoft thing longer... I didn't see anything connecting me with the Illuminati, or the guys broadcasting mind control rays into your fillings. You're obviously not seeing the big picture.
But yes, you cleverly placed me as symbolset's sock-puppet. He cleverly opened this Slashdot account years previous to his main account, and made thousands of unrelated postings, just to build a false front of trust. But then, basking in the glory of his own genius he posts an insult to you from the wrong account and you finally put together all the pieces. Well done, you're one step closer to the ultimate truth!
Get some meds.
Government monopolies started with royalty rewarding followers with being the only people allowed to do X, sometimes exploit a territory, sometimes a technology or idea. You seem to think that old ideas have power, so I was pointing out older ideas you might also like.
If however you choose to join the world of the evidence-based, there has not been much study to show that patents/etc help the economy as a whole. Outside of situation imposed by the government itself (FDA testing, etc) there really isn't a demonstrated need for this protectionism.
But there are a lot of rent collectors who'll tell you the world will end without it...
You act like the GPL is the only, or strictest, license in existence.
Version 3 of the GPL is the most restrictive FOSS license in existence.
The most restrictive FOSS license, omg. That's like the meanest carebear.
It still only restricts people who want to close the source. That's a feature.
But forcing all derivative works to be open is no better than forcing all derivative works to be closed.
In your morality, maybe. But in the real world, forcing source to be open helps users far more than hurts them.
No one is stopping you from playing with the code. If you fork an open-source project and close that source, the original still exists.
Why do all you types say this, as if it isn't clear?
"What? No?! When someone uses my source my copy doesn't go away? Thanks Mister, I never knew that!"
Yes, but it doesn't acquire new features on its own, just sitting there.
If I am building a product for my company to sell, I have to avoid GPL code like it was HIV positive. That can hurt the user ...
Yeah, because nobody ever built a product around an open product before.
Sure, it doesn't fit all business models but neither does paying for a $10k library.
Seriously, do most users care more if A) the program works or B) if the source is open?
Seriously, do most drivers care more about A) The low-resistance features of their car's fuel-feedback wiring, or B) The specific wire-weave pattern in their radial tires? Quick!
No, seriously, is that program more likely to trap users' data in a proprietary mess if the source is open or closed?
What you want, and that you don't feel your freedom to close code is being respected, is clear. But I and other GPL users just don't care. Or, if we do, we care to thwart you more than help you, because you always consider yourselves and never your users.
I am certain you could have learned to program by reading a different set of source code had the one that you read not been available.
Yes, but it wouldn't have been as nice and convenient. If a user of your program was curious as to how it worked they wouldn't be able to. Not very helpful.
Yeah, what started out as payoffs to powerful nobles certainly couldn't have become entrenched in modern law, despite being unjust and counter-productive.
That's a good citizen.