When I moved to a my first apartment where I was paying for Internet service myself, in a suburb of Boston, Massachusetts, I ensured that SpeakEasy.net DSL was available before I signed the lease on the place. At the time, Comcast didn't even exist. I had previously had AT&T cable (*.attbi.net) in an apartment shared with a roommate; when AT&T started implementing inbound filtering of port 80 in response to the Code Red worm, they landed on my boycott list.
When I moved to Manchester, New Hampshire in 2007, I ensured that I moved somewhere where there was not a cable TV monopoly infesting the ISP market. There were multiple DSL providers at the time. SpeakEasy.net wasn't available in New Hampshire unfortunately, but I found a local DSL provider (MV Communications, out of business now) and ensured they were available before I signed any leases. I think I called them 5-6 times asking them to check a phone number or address on an apartment.
When I moved to a small town in New Hampshire a little while later, I moved somewhere where we split a T-1 line (1.5Mb/s), so the balance I paid was about $50/mo. DSL has become available via a regional company called FairPoint since, and we've switched to that. Cable TV is not even available in the town, but if any of the cable providers in N.H. try to move in and have the town establish a monopoly for them, which I believe they have to do via warrant article on the town ballot, I would do whatever I could to oppose such a measure.
So yes, I am absolutely serious about not giving my money to corporate bastards like Comcast. If you piss me off, you will not get my money no matter how much I "need" your services.
Verizon engages in union busting lobbying for anti-net-neutrality measures, etc etc etc...
Verizon is on my boycott list for other reasons, but not this. I don't support "net neutrality" any more than I support any other attempt to regulate the Internet.
I thought we were already boycotting Comcast for the way they interfered with BitTorrent traffic?
I have been, at least. But an awful lot of people around here seem to treat Comcast like they do the big media corporations: Oh, we hate them for their "IP" lobbying but we'll still slurp up all the content they produce! Wasn't that new movie great!?
Another tech company? Where's the boycott against them like the one against GoDaddy?
Don't tell me, "Comcast is the only provider" wherever you are. Dialup and satellite are available most everywhere, even if Comcast has their government-granted cable monopoly in your area.
The FSF has absolutely no problem with you taking GPLed software "originated elsewhere" and reselling it commercially. All you have to do is provide the source code, too, and you're compliant with the GPL.
Why can he not simply begin distributing Linux under the GPLv3? From the GPLv2:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version.
There's no such thing as "no ideology." Most people who claim to be making decisions not based on ideology are in fact subscribers to the ideologies of utilitarianism ("do whatever's necessary to make the most people content") or technocracy ("rule by scientific experts").
Some such people probably don't even realize this; other people are akin to the true believers of a religion who insist that their religion isn't really "a religion" but the One True Way to do things.
Any tool developed using public funds should be placed in the public domain.
I use copyleft for my own works, but I do so as a defense against anyone else trying to claim a standard "all rights reserved" copyright over my works. I would public-domain them if I could do so safely. I use copyright law and its ability to place restrictions upon the free flow of information merely to make sure someone else can't take a piece of information I wish to offer freely and wrap it in their own, non-free, worse "all rights reserved" copyright and license.
So, whereas I personally support the restrictions that copyleft creates, in the broadest sense, one must admit that copyleft's restrictions are as much restrictions as standard copyright's are. "No" is "no" whether or not you agree with it. It's an individual, political/ideological decision to copyleft a work rather than use a standard copyright.
And works paid for by the public---paid for by everyone, without their explicit consent---should not be subject to political/ideological decisions. Everyone paid for these works, including people who strongly oppose the spirit of copyleft. Therefore, these works should be returned to the public with no restrictions placed upon them.
At this point, I have no idea what you're even talking about. I said in the OP that I've used OSS for about a decade now---that means Linux. From what did you possibly conclude I "hate" Linux?
Or you can make money on custom development. Or selling services related to the software. Or any other things.
A lot of OSS was made by people who cared nothing about selling it, for example, the vast majority of GNU software. It was then bundled into packages such as Linux distributions by companies trying to make money through other means such as support contracts.
I have nothing against people trying to make money selling something the marginal cost of which is, literally, so close to $0.00 as to make no difference. Good luck with that. Plenty of people make money selling things "worth" little to nothing, because there are still people willing to pay the price.
But from the buyer's perspective, rationally speaking, it's just silly to pay money for software. What with the rise of OSS, more and more people are realizing this, and this "app" craze over the past few years, is, in my opinion, just the last gasp of companies used to making money off of individual copies of software.
Science doesn't "require" anybody to do anything. It's a belief system; it can't engage in force. That needs people---people who've arrogantly concluded that their particular opinion is so right that it ought to be forced upon other people, including those holding a different opinion.
You know what we typically call these people? Fundamentalists. You don't have to be a Christian to be a fundamentalist.
So long as the government tries to meddle in our lives and our choices by pointing to scientific theories that seemingly justify their actions, some of us are going to resist believing in those theories. The logic is simple: Discredit the theory and one removes the justification for the meddling.
They want to force us to pay "carbon" taxes, trade made-up "carbon credits," sort our trash and recycle, give up useful products and materials for increasingly shoddy substitutes, give up our cars in favor of public transportation or a bicycle, and do myriad other things from minor annoyances to major life changes. They do all of this by pointing to the scientific theory of "global warming." So naturally some of us are going to hit back---discredit the theory and one removes the justification for all these policies.
They establish a compulsory education system and then want to teach children a scientific theory that is directly at odds with the belief system of many of those children's parents. So naturally some of us are going to hit back---discredit the theory and one removes the justification for teaching it to their kids.
There are other examples of this kind of technocracy; the two above are merely the most prominent.
We don't see average Americans "denying," say, particle physics or astronomy, the same way we do with environmentalism or evolution. Why? Because these theories aren't being used to shove policies down unwilling people's throats.
The purpose of government is to set policy. To tell people---everyone---what to do. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence---it is force." It is fundamentally incompatible with any realm of thought or action in which differences of opinions exist. We have the principle of "separation of church and state" because certain intelligent people a few centuries ago realized how dangerous it was to have government involved in our religious choices. If we want to see science fluorish, what we need now is "separation of science and state."
The purpose of these devices is to make people stop thinking of computers as computers, and as mere appliances that do for you only what their manufacturers want them to do.
Their press release was also pretty slimily worded. They basically said they support everything SOPA stands for (not in those words, but in effect), but they don't actually support the literal, exact bill in its current form.
On the one hand, this is a great example of a successful boycott: GoDaddy committed an egregious action which generated so many complaints, threats of monetary loss, and now 21,000 examples of actual loss, that GoDaddy did a complete about-face and dropped support of SOPA.
On the other hand, this company has committed so many egregious and unethical actions over their lifetime (anyone else remember NoDaddy.com?) that I would rather see them lose so much business that they go out of business. If I hadn't already moved my domains off of them after one of their earlier outrages, I'd still move them off now, even though they turned around on SOPA. Let their flaming wreckage be an example to other domain registrars.
So in other words, the next four years without this drug is going to produce a bunch of people who end up with HIV but can use the vaccine to control it, preventing AIDS, but not eliminate it. Does that mean they have to take the vaccine all their life in order to continue to control it, or will it still be a one-time think like administering a vaccine to an uninfected patient? Will HIV-infected-but-vaccinated people be able to transmit the disease to unprotected partners?
Any way you look at it, this four-year bureaucratic delay is going to cause people to catch HIV who otherwise wouldn't. Thank you, FDA.
Slashdot Mirror
When I moved to a my first apartment where I was paying for Internet service myself, in a suburb of Boston, Massachusetts, I ensured that SpeakEasy.net DSL was available before I signed the lease on the place. At the time, Comcast didn't even exist. I had previously had AT&T cable (*.attbi.net) in an apartment shared with a roommate; when AT&T started implementing inbound filtering of port 80 in response to the Code Red worm, they landed on my boycott list.
When I moved to Manchester, New Hampshire in 2007, I ensured that I moved somewhere where there was not a cable TV monopoly infesting the ISP market. There were multiple DSL providers at the time. SpeakEasy.net wasn't available in New Hampshire unfortunately, but I found a local DSL provider (MV Communications, out of business now) and ensured they were available before I signed any leases. I think I called them 5-6 times asking them to check a phone number or address on an apartment.
When I moved to a small town in New Hampshire a little while later, I moved somewhere where we split a T-1 line (1.5Mb/s), so the balance I paid was about $50/mo. DSL has become available via a regional company called FairPoint since, and we've switched to that. Cable TV is not even available in the town, but if any of the cable providers in N.H. try to move in and have the town establish a monopoly for them, which I believe they have to do via warrant article on the town ballot, I would do whatever I could to oppose such a measure.
So yes, I am absolutely serious about not giving my money to corporate bastards like Comcast. If you piss me off, you will not get my money no matter how much I "need" your services.
Verizon is on my boycott list for other reasons, but not this. I don't support "net neutrality" any more than I support any other attempt to regulate the Internet.
So there is another provider in your area---but it's "too slow."
Remember every dollar you give to these bastards is helping them make your already limited Internet experience worse.
I have been, at least. But an awful lot of people around here seem to treat Comcast like they do the big media corporations: Oh, we hate them for their "IP" lobbying but we'll still slurp up all the content they produce! Wasn't that new movie great!?
No it doesn't; boycotting simply means not giving them any more money.
I've been doing that for years.
Another tech company? Where's the boycott against them like the one against GoDaddy?
Don't tell me, "Comcast is the only provider" wherever you are. Dialup and satellite are available most everywhere, even if Comcast has their government-granted cable monopoly in your area.
The FSF has absolutely no problem with you taking GPLed software "originated elsewhere" and reselling it commercially. All you have to do is provide the source code, too, and you're compliant with the GPL.
So how do these two things compare again?
Lots of people seem to think RMS is some sort of socialist. Sounds like he's a lot more libertarian than some people give him credit for.
Why can he not simply begin distributing Linux under the GPLv3? From the GPLv2:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version.
(Emphasis added.)
There's no such thing as "no ideology." Most people who claim to be making decisions not based on ideology are in fact subscribers to the ideologies of utilitarianism ("do whatever's necessary to make the most people content") or technocracy ("rule by scientific experts").
Some such people probably don't even realize this; other people are akin to the true believers of a religion who insist that their religion isn't really "a religion" but the One True Way to do things.
Any tool developed using public funds should be placed in the public domain.
I use copyleft for my own works, but I do so as a defense against anyone else trying to claim a standard "all rights reserved" copyright over my works. I would public-domain them if I could do so safely. I use copyright law and its ability to place restrictions upon the free flow of information merely to make sure someone else can't take a piece of information I wish to offer freely and wrap it in their own, non-free, worse "all rights reserved" copyright and license.
So, whereas I personally support the restrictions that copyleft creates, in the broadest sense, one must admit that copyleft's restrictions are as much restrictions as standard copyright's are. "No" is "no" whether or not you agree with it. It's an individual, political/ideological decision to copyleft a work rather than use a standard copyright.
And works paid for by the public---paid for by everyone, without their explicit consent---should not be subject to political/ideological decisions. Everyone paid for these works, including people who strongly oppose the spirit of copyleft. Therefore, these works should be returned to the public with no restrictions placed upon them.
At this point, I have no idea what you're even talking about. I said in the OP that I've used OSS for about a decade now---that means Linux. From what did you possibly conclude I "hate" Linux?
Actually, an awful lot of companies do that here, too. I wouldn't be surprised if Verizon is charging a fee for mailing a paper bill, too.
Yes, Linux and the entire GNU project are "nothing of value" because they're available for $0.00. Right.
How?
Or you can make money on custom development. Or selling services related to the software. Or any other things.
A lot of OSS was made by people who cared nothing about selling it, for example, the vast majority of GNU software. It was then bundled into packages such as Linux distributions by companies trying to make money through other means such as support contracts.
I have nothing against people trying to make money selling something the marginal cost of which is, literally, so close to $0.00 as to make no difference. Good luck with that. Plenty of people make money selling things "worth" little to nothing, because there are still people willing to pay the price.
But from the buyer's perspective, rationally speaking, it's just silly to pay money for software. What with the rise of OSS, more and more people are realizing this, and this "app" craze over the past few years, is, in my opinion, just the last gasp of companies used to making money off of individual copies of software.
Not by trying to make money by selling individual copies of software.
...I've worked with OSS for a decade, even $0.15 sounds ridiculous for a piece of software.
Science doesn't "require" anybody to do anything. It's a belief system; it can't engage in force. That needs people---people who've arrogantly concluded that their particular opinion is so right that it ought to be forced upon other people, including those holding a different opinion.
You know what we typically call these people? Fundamentalists. You don't have to be a Christian to be a fundamentalist.
...and people will stop politicizing science.
So long as the government tries to meddle in our lives and our choices by pointing to scientific theories that seemingly justify their actions, some of us are going to resist believing in those theories. The logic is simple: Discredit the theory and one removes the justification for the meddling.
They want to force us to pay "carbon" taxes, trade made-up "carbon credits," sort our trash and recycle, give up useful products and materials for increasingly shoddy substitutes, give up our cars in favor of public transportation or a bicycle, and do myriad other things from minor annoyances to major life changes. They do all of this by pointing to the scientific theory of "global warming." So naturally some of us are going to hit back---discredit the theory and one removes the justification for all these policies.
They establish a compulsory education system and then want to teach children a scientific theory that is directly at odds with the belief system of many of those children's parents. So naturally some of us are going to hit back---discredit the theory and one removes the justification for teaching it to their kids.
There are other examples of this kind of technocracy; the two above are merely the most prominent.
We don't see average Americans "denying," say, particle physics or astronomy, the same way we do with environmentalism or evolution. Why? Because these theories aren't being used to shove policies down unwilling people's throats.
The purpose of government is to set policy. To tell people---everyone---what to do. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence---it is force." It is fundamentally incompatible with any realm of thought or action in which differences of opinions exist. We have the principle of "separation of church and state" because certain intelligent people a few centuries ago realized how dangerous it was to have government involved in our religious choices. If we want to see science fluorish, what we need now is "separation of science and state."
The purpose of these devices is to make people stop thinking of computers as computers, and as mere appliances that do for you only what their manufacturers want them to do.
Good point.
Their press release was also pretty slimily worded. They basically said they support everything SOPA stands for (not in those words, but in effect), but they don't actually support the literal, exact bill in its current form.
Serves them right.
On the one hand, this is a great example of a successful boycott: GoDaddy committed an egregious action which generated so many complaints, threats of monetary loss, and now 21,000 examples of actual loss, that GoDaddy did a complete about-face and dropped support of SOPA.
On the other hand, this company has committed so many egregious and unethical actions over their lifetime (anyone else remember NoDaddy.com?) that I would rather see them lose so much business that they go out of business. If I hadn't already moved my domains off of them after one of their earlier outrages, I'd still move them off now, even though they turned around on SOPA. Let their flaming wreckage be an example to other domain registrars.
The citation is to a book, Healing our World, by Mary Ruwart. There's an entire chapter about the damage the FDA has caused.
So in other words, the next four years without this drug is going to produce a bunch of people who end up with HIV but can use the vaccine to control it, preventing AIDS, but not eliminate it. Does that mean they have to take the vaccine all their life in order to continue to control it, or will it still be a one-time think like administering a vaccine to an uninfected patient? Will HIV-infected-but-vaccinated people be able to transmit the disease to unprotected partners?
Any way you look at it, this four-year bureaucratic delay is going to cause people to catch HIV who otherwise wouldn't. Thank you, FDA.