So... instead of taking steps to reduce Debian's boot time, let me get this straight - you spent twenty-four hours compiling an operating system, and you shaved what a second or two off your boot time? That's the most catastrophically stupid thing I've ever heard.
With a little research you could have accomplished a parallel init-process, without wasting twenty-four hours compiling unnecessary packages.
I never made the assertion that libertarian policies would make life better. As it is, you made the assertion that a democratic government has more incentive to keep people fed, watered, housed, et cetera than a libertarian free market - yet you never provided evidence for your assertion. So, my evidence to the contrary stands until you can prove it.
I didn't say anything about Democracy being terrible in comparison to other forms of government, I merely refuted your assertion that a democratic government has any incentive to keep its people fed, housed, and employed.
Corporations exist due to corporate charter granted by the government of the state of incorporation. In the eyes of the law corporations are persons - this due to a very stupid legal interpretation by the Supreme Court during the Gilded Age. Due to their "personhood" and investor shield laws it is very difficult to hold decision-makers responsible for corporate malfeasance. The Libertarian response to that imbalance is to revoke investor shield laws, so that majority investors will be held responsible for the misconduct of their corporations - which in turn will cause them to hold the corporations to higher ethical standards.
If a corporation acts contrary to the public interest and isn't brought into line by its shareholders, then the government would act, and the shareholders and corporate officers would be punished - perhaps to the extent of revoking the corporate charter entirely, thereby dissolving the company.
As for your assertion that a democratic government has an incentive to keep the citizenry fed, housed, employed, and happy. I'd point out the high unemployment in Western European democracies, India's over-crowding problem, the high percentage of homelessness in the United States (in comparison to other Western Democracies), and the fact that the happiness enjoyed by Westerners is not a product of the State but of the market.
Well, two years ago there weren't cities controlled completely by theocratic nut-jobs, nor were journalists routinely beheaded. In fact, we'll have to be there forever, pissing people off, because if we leave there will be a civil war which will result in a Totalitarian Islamist Theocracy. Good job! Either direction we go results in more terrorists, and a less safe Middle East!
Public schools are government institutions, and because the 14th Amendment stretches the restrictions on the Federal Government to all local government institutions, public schools shouldn't be in the business of restricting access to books.
You don't have to use their freebeta service if you don't want to. In fact, you don't have to use their service after it is out of beta. If you don't use their service, they can't "snoop" your email. Indexing usenet was done long before Google bought Dejanews. It's a useful resource, and if you don't like it, you don't have to use it!
I disagree, this stunt is a glowing indication of this extremist ass-hat to engage in the political process in any meaningful way. It's disingenuous to compare this ass-hat to the entire left as it is for the left to compare the right to David Duke.
Criminals on either side shouldn't be seen as indicative of the entirety of the ideology.
Trade secrets are protected by contracts, and corporate espionage laws. If you have a copy of their trade secrets in your vehicle (say in a chip or something), and you did not sign a contract, you cannot be held liable for releasing their trade secrets because they did not take reasonable measures to protect it.
Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited, not intended for internal use. Yada yada yada, I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on television.
There was no authorisation to continue on to Baghdad. The UN Resolution and the corresponding Congressional action, both only allowed for expelling the Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Also, Operation Desert Storm/Shield was in 1990-1991, not 1989.
Logically one cannot both accept the terms of a license and publically maintain that the terms of said license are not legally valid. Since SCO publically maintains that the license is invalid, they cannot accept its terms. Ergo, they have no license to modify or distribute programs licensed under the GPL.
Read clause five of the GPL, it says specifically that if you do not agree with the GPL, you are not granted the rights the GPL offers. SCO has publically stated that they deny the validity of the GPL, since they deny that validity they get no rights to distribute or modify GPLed work.
He's not adding additional clauses or restrictions, he is dual licensing his code. GPL and No_SCO_Redistribution. SCO publically states that it does not accept the GPL as valid, they cannot both deny the validity of the license and accept it at the same time. Therefore, they've lost any rights associated with accepting the license. Fyodor is merely stating it Explicitly.
Also the GPL says specifically that it is not a contract, so your arguing that it is like a contract is misinformed. It merely says that for a license to redistribute, you must agree to the terms of the license. It does not say that your must get a license to redistribute if you follow the terms of the License.
Also, IANAL, but I was under the impression that the US legal code was based on English Common Law, where whatever is not expressly forbidden or excluded is permitted. I would imagine (naively maybe) that the same would hold true for contract law.
I haven't tried, but I can, the SYSV license IBM owns specifically states that it is non-revokable, the GPL does not. Further, as I stated before, SCO has openly admitted that they do not agree with the GPL, and as clause 5 of the GPL states: You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
Since they do not accept the License, they cannot distribute.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the application, IYDMMA?
WHOA!? How'd you know?!
So... instead of taking steps to reduce Debian's boot time, let me get this straight - you spent twenty-four hours compiling an operating system, and you shaved what a second or two off your boot time? That's the most catastrophically stupid thing I've ever heard.
With a little research you could have accomplished a parallel init-process, without wasting twenty-four hours compiling unnecessary packages.
I never made the assertion that libertarian policies would make life better. As it is, you made the assertion that a democratic government has more incentive to keep people fed, watered, housed, et cetera than a libertarian free market - yet you never provided evidence for your assertion. So, my evidence to the contrary stands until you can prove it.
I didn't say anything about Democracy being terrible in comparison to other forms of government, I merely refuted your assertion that a democratic government has any incentive to keep its people fed, housed, and employed.
Regulated meaning "supervised, controlled, and organised" is a modern meaning. Regulated in that context means "trained".
Corporations exist due to corporate charter granted by the government of the state of incorporation. In the eyes of the law corporations are persons - this due to a very stupid legal interpretation by the Supreme Court during the Gilded Age. Due to their "personhood" and investor shield laws it is very difficult to hold decision-makers responsible for corporate malfeasance. The Libertarian response to that imbalance is to revoke investor shield laws, so that majority investors will be held responsible for the misconduct of their corporations - which in turn will cause them to hold the corporations to higher ethical standards.
If a corporation acts contrary to the public interest and isn't brought into line by its shareholders, then the government would act, and the shareholders and corporate officers would be punished - perhaps to the extent of revoking the corporate charter entirely, thereby dissolving the company.
As for your assertion that a democratic government has an incentive to keep the citizenry fed, housed, employed, and happy. I'd point out the high unemployment in Western European democracies, India's over-crowding problem, the high percentage of homelessness in the United States (in comparison to other Western Democracies), and the fact that the happiness enjoyed by Westerners is not a product of the State but of the market.
Well, two years ago there weren't cities controlled completely by theocratic nut-jobs, nor were journalists routinely beheaded. In fact, we'll have to be there forever, pissing people off, because if we leave there will be a civil war which will result in a Totalitarian Islamist Theocracy. Good job! Either direction we go results in more terrorists, and a less safe Middle East!
Galileo was a plagiarist, and he was tried for calling the Pope an idiot. He was a coward and copped a plea, too.
Public schools are government institutions, and because the 14th Amendment stretches the restrictions on the Federal Government to all local government institutions, public schools shouldn't be in the business of restricting access to books.
You don't have to use their free beta service if you don't want to. In fact, you don't have to use their service after it is out of beta. If you don't use their service, they can't "snoop" your email. Indexing usenet was done long before Google bought Dejanews. It's a useful resource, and if you don't like it, you don't have to use it!
Ingenious this choice thing we all have, no?
I disagree, this stunt is a glowing indication of this extremist ass-hat to engage in the political process in any meaningful way. It's disingenuous to compare this ass-hat to the entire left as it is for the left to compare the right to David Duke.
Criminals on either side shouldn't be seen as indicative of the entirety of the ideology.
I know they do, I was just being an ass, as the parent responded to himself to avoid my response.
What about balloons, don't they fly?
Mozilla Firefox is JavaScript compatible. Real JavaScript, as it was designed by Netscape, not as it was "extended" by Microsoft.
Trade secrets are protected by contracts, and corporate espionage laws. If you have a copy of their trade secrets in your vehicle (say in a chip or something), and you did not sign a contract, you cannot be held liable for releasing their trade secrets because they did not take reasonable measures to protect it.
Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited, not intended for internal use. Yada yada yada, I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on television.
Everyone knows the Canadian Postal Service is a subsidiary of the USPS. Jeez, kids these days.
Please feel free to bombard me with[...] accusations of beasteality.
Your mother was a hampster, and your father smelt of elderberries.
But have you tried it while someone playing the agent was shooting at you? No? Amateur.
There was no authorisation to continue on to Baghdad. The UN Resolution and the corresponding Congressional action, both only allowed for expelling the Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Also, Operation Desert Storm/Shield was in 1990-1991, not 1989.
Logically one cannot both accept the terms of a license and publically maintain that the terms of said license are not legally valid. Since SCO publically maintains that the license is invalid, they cannot accept its terms. Ergo, they have no license to modify or distribute programs licensed under the GPL.
Read clause five of the GPL, it says specifically that if you do not agree with the GPL, you are not granted the rights the GPL offers. SCO has publically stated that they deny the validity of the GPL, since they deny that validity they get no rights to distribute or modify GPLed work.
He's not adding additional clauses or restrictions, he is dual licensing his code. GPL and No_SCO_Redistribution. SCO publically states that it does not accept the GPL as valid, they cannot both deny the validity of the license and accept it at the same time. Therefore, they've lost any rights associated with accepting the license. Fyodor is merely stating it Explicitly.
Fine by me, as I don't own one. But since you'll be stopping by, do you mind bringing a gallon of skim milk?
Also the GPL says specifically that it is not a contract, so your arguing that it is like a contract is misinformed. It merely says that for a license to redistribute, you must agree to the terms of the license. It does not say that your must get a license to redistribute if you follow the terms of the License.
Also, IANAL, but I was under the impression that the US legal code was based on English Common Law, where whatever is not expressly forbidden or excluded is permitted. I would imagine (naively maybe) that the same would hold true for contract law.
I haven't tried, but I can, the SYSV license IBM owns specifically states that it is non-revokable, the GPL does not. Further, as I stated before, SCO has openly admitted that they do not agree with the GPL, and as clause 5 of the GPL states: You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
Since they do not accept the License, they cannot distribute.