For as much as the technolibertarian parts of the geek community loves to rage against the TSA, they're not actually that unpopular with the general public. There's some good poll data on this.
The article is disappointingly vague and hand-wavy. Either the science is bullshit, or this summary is. Given that it's from India, I am leaning towards guessing the former; there's a lot of great research that happens in the country, but there's also a lot of pseudoscience that happens that's designed to give warm fuzzies to Indian nationalists who think they can undo the horrors of colonialisation and recapture national pride by beating the drum of "Vedic Math". Some of their flashier salesmen make it to the US and sell it to deluded new-agers and the other uneducated, portraying it as exotic deep knowledge "from the East".
I find it hard to believe that claims like this are supportable as good science at this point.
Profit is not something people are entitled to; they can seek it, but there are various other societal interests in most things they might do, and those things have to be figured in. Usually through regulation.
So you get a leech living in your house that should be able to get a job paying for an apartment, and get no personal benefit. No equity, no repayment, nothing. Who would be so daft as to sign this agreement?
Wasn't talking about the party, but the other guy who responded to this provided a nice example of the very silly claims many libertarians make on this front.
Amusing that so many people claim the Constitution as their banner and claim it represents their precise political views, when it predates basically all modern political discourse and their own views are so reprehensible. Amusing that the Libertarians might claim to be the same party as the Democratic-Republican Party, or the Federalist Party, and claim all sides of the First Party System as themselves.
Yeah, that at-best/at-worst thing is what I'm getting at. Something as generic as better science education is broadly awesome, and avoiding a sponsor (provided they're not a demanding sponsor) for that is pretty dumb. The at-worst concern is worth thinking about though, as would be potential "cultural rot" caused by accepting aid for now and possibly needing to pull back from it later should it head over to type-2.
I can imagine there might be good and bad reasons to part ways, and I'm wondering if he's explained himself somewhere.
If the DARPA involvement is just to encourage cleverness and the sciences, I don't think he has a leg to stand on (or his principles are WAY different than mine), but if DARPA is having the kids build specific technologies being used for military applications, it might be worth parting ways over it.
This is an interesting step; in general countries are a lot more strict on entering their territory than leaving it. There are some circumstances where you'd want to control exit (if someone is fleeing law enforcement for some reason, avoiding child custody or the like), but I wonder if that's the intent of this policy shift or if it's something else.
The high profile journals weed out sensationalist claims more often than not (part of being high-profile is having a finely tuned bullshit meter). The number of retractions are also a sign of strength, as the mechanisms forcing people to correct their errors are getting better. This isn't to claim that the process doesn't have room for improvement, but the cited examples are rubbish.
I'm sure what we'll find out in the end is that people vary; many of us have pretty strong notions of what's unacceptable, and provided those notions are met we'd accept profit. Principles: 1) I do want an end to all IP protections, and to see development of custom features and support being the primary ways support happens 2) I don't want whatever companies exist that work with open source software to sit on closed extensions forever, or for them to reject donated code that duplicates any custom code they use to support themselves 3) I think features that are not of general interest should still be opensource but funded by those with the special interest. 4) New features, if they are to be funded, can be done through bounties, but not every bit of development should be done through a bounty; there should be a main course of development for most products that happens no matter what, even if at a slow pace 5) Patents and copyright should not be used to prevent forking, clones, or competition
I would accept profits happening along the way, provided these principles are met.
Slashdot Mirror
For as much as the technolibertarian parts of the geek community loves to rage against the TSA, they're not actually that unpopular with the general public. There's some good poll data on this.
The article is disappointingly vague and hand-wavy. Either the science is bullshit, or this summary is. Given that it's from India, I am leaning towards guessing the former; there's a lot of great research that happens in the country, but there's also a lot of pseudoscience that happens that's designed to give warm fuzzies to Indian nationalists who think they can undo the horrors of colonialisation and recapture national pride by beating the drum of "Vedic Math". Some of their flashier salesmen make it to the US and sell it to deluded new-agers and the other uneducated, portraying it as exotic deep knowledge "from the East".
I find it hard to believe that claims like this are supportable as good science at this point.
They'll have to figure out a way of detecting us first, and I think writing a decent law that would target this reasonably would be pretty tough.
It'd be amusing, perhaps as amusing as spammers suing Google for the right to spam your mailbox.
You are aware that that's not that hard to program once you have the information, right?
It'd be great if we could get them to object to and block every single new topical TLD.
Profit is not something people are entitled to; they can seek it, but there are various other societal interests in most things they might do, and those things have to be figured in. Usually through regulation.
I am not a business. Businesses need accountants and legal help as part of their ordinary existence, and they're artificial entities to begin with.
I am so glad that systems need to be perfect and costs need to be 0 before we're willing to accept them.
You might have a case for hypocrisy if you could find my support for a "fight the man" mentality. As-is, you don't.
Anyone whose brings "against my belief system" to a court of law and expects special consideration because of that should lose.
Fonts are a lot more complicated than you think. You're not going to easily be able to convert a given imagefile into a font.
It's not their value alone if they need society to realise it.
So you get a leech living in your house that should be able to get a job paying for an apartment, and get no personal benefit. No equity, no repayment, nothing. Who would be so daft as to sign this agreement?
It was obviously not intended to be published to the world. Once you're doing hostile penetration analysis, you've well beyond "fair and square".
Wasn't talking about the party, but the other guy who responded to this provided a nice example of the very silly claims many libertarians make on this front.
Amusing that so many people claim the Constitution as their banner and claim it represents their precise political views, when it predates basically all modern political discourse and their own views are so reprehensible. Amusing that the Libertarians might claim to be the same party as the Democratic-Republican Party, or the Federalist Party, and claim all sides of the First Party System as themselves.
Yeah, that at-best/at-worst thing is what I'm getting at. Something as generic as better science education is broadly awesome, and avoiding a sponsor (provided they're not a demanding sponsor) for that is pretty dumb. The at-worst concern is worth thinking about though, as would be potential "cultural rot" caused by accepting aid for now and possibly needing to pull back from it later should it head over to type-2.
I can imagine there might be good and bad reasons to part ways, and I'm wondering if he's explained himself somewhere.
If the DARPA involvement is just to encourage cleverness and the sciences, I don't think he has a leg to stand on (or his principles are WAY different than mine), but if DARPA is having the kids build specific technologies being used for military applications, it might be worth parting ways over it.
This is an interesting step; in general countries are a lot more strict on entering their territory than leaving it. There are some circumstances where you'd want to control exit (if someone is fleeing law enforcement for some reason, avoiding child custody or the like), but I wonder if that's the intent of this policy shift or if it's something else.
The high profile journals weed out sensationalist claims more often than not (part of being high-profile is having a finely tuned bullshit meter). The number of retractions are also a sign of strength, as the mechanisms forcing people to correct their errors are getting better. This isn't to claim that the process doesn't have room for improvement, but the cited examples are rubbish.
It kinda makes my point that you're willing to make that comparison, Godwin's law and all.
Why do we want to crash the government? It's our tool to serve the public good. It's not perfect, but we're better off with it than against it.
The libertarian hostility to civilisation is very sad.
I'm sure what we'll find out in the end is that people vary; many of us have pretty strong notions of what's unacceptable, and provided those notions are met we'd accept profit.
Principles:
1) I do want an end to all IP protections, and to see development of custom features and support being the primary ways support happens
2) I don't want whatever companies exist that work with open source software to sit on closed extensions forever, or for them to reject donated code that duplicates any custom code they use to support themselves
3) I think features that are not of general interest should still be opensource but funded by those with the special interest.
4) New features, if they are to be funded, can be done through bounties, but not every bit of development should be done through a bounty; there should be a main course of development for most products that happens no matter what, even if at a slow pace
5) Patents and copyright should not be used to prevent forking, clones, or competition
I would accept profits happening along the way, provided these principles are met.
I agree with your restatement. And actually with your postnote too.
Anytime someone says "See $dystopianfiction" for their political points in a discussion, it says something about them.