Again you didn't look for it hard enough. I can easily find as much material as I can chew of Calculus, Analytic Geometry, Analysis, Topology, Set Theory, Linear Algebra, Abstract Algebra, far beyond the necessities of a Graduation course, and all for free, and no I am not talking about scanned Text Books.
Then either you haven't looked for it hard enough or you are looking for material so advanced that it can't really be classified as "College Textbooks" or even "Graduation textbooks", in which case you are probably looking for White Papers and not Text Books anyway.
That is a generic problem with fines and big corporations, not only something related with privacy issues. As long as fines are applied at absolute values corporations will only laugh at them and keep doing what they want. Fines should be applied at amounts proportionally to a company's value.
Now, all of this would still entail that there would be these gatekeepers that maintain the actual physical construction and access to this virtual world and that, again, would in and of itself place restrictions on freedoms; these gatekeepers could allow themselves more bandwidth than others, more computers online than others, they could introduce tracking of the people they let through and so on. Basically, the idea you presented is an oxymoron and not possible in the physical world.
Allowing more or less of those things is irrelevant regarding freedom. You seem to confuse communism with freedom. That is an oxymoron. The gatekeepers exist in the real world and are restricted to the real world laws. As long as those laws force net neutrality what exists within is free regardless of what they do. If those laws do not force neutrality, things like TOR come into play and try to compensate it.
Regarding identity. Transmitting information regardless of identity is far from being useless. Information has value on its own. There are means to verify identity if you want to do real world stuff in the Internet. If you do not, identity is a secondary concept.
That works in any system where physical violence can't be used to impose one's will over another. Hacking is just an inconvenience in comparison and can't really take the freedom of anybody in the Internet at long term. Again "responsibility" has nothing to do with freedom. It is a means of arbitrarily limiting freedom in systems where it is impossible to achieve it completely accordingly to someone's sense of right and wrong, which is far from being an absolute concept.
Sure you can. The correlation between freedom and responsibility exists only in your head. In a world where it is impossible to restrict the freedom of others, like a completely anonymous Internet, everybody would be completely free and nobody would be responsible for anything.
Logic is a subset of Philosophy and Philosophy is a subset of knowledge. Being a subset of something else is irrelevant.
It would be better to teach scientists more philosophy than math.
You are not very good in logic, are you? If Math is a subset of philosophy by teaching math you are teaching philosophy.
Philosophy has interesting subjects, and some of its subsets that are unrelated to mathematics and logic may be important on some scientific fields, but math is by far the most important of the philosophy subsets for scientists of any field.
And that is the main limiting factor of science nowadays. Potential advancements in many fields require knowledge in many others from a single person, and the amount of knowledge a single person can have is limited. At some point in the future artificial improvements of brain capacity and knowledge transfer will be required to accomplish any advancement in science.
That said, I disagree with you in one thing. Although giving everyone the exact same knowledge is indeed a bad idea, requiring from every scientist at least a reasonable mathematical knowledge is not. Mathematics is logic and logic is the foundation of science. Nobody that is ignorant about mathematics can call himself a scientist.
Ah, many things can be accomplished by splinting the expertise between two or more people, but many things do require that the expertise be concentrated in a single individual. Especially things that require complex and frequent interactions between them to generate understanding.
The Swedish justice system left piratebay alone because that is what they should do accordingly to the law, but then, when enough pressure from US was applied they basically ignored their own law and did what US and their corporations wanted.
There is a motive for hearsay be unusable in court. That is because it means absolutely nothing. It is irrelevant.
The third accusation isn't bullshit. It was widely reported.
It was reported that the data leaked had the names. Nowhere there it is said that he asked for money to take the names of it, as you falsely accuse him of. He only asked help from the Amnesty to edit the names.
His partner outlined how the entire purpose of Wikileaks was to funnel money to Assange
Trial in absence aside, the prosecutors failed to present any real evidence of their charges. It is all based on blatantly inconsistent claims. They have nothing else.
And he may be a coward, but being courageous and being stupid are often one and the same. No collection of international lawyers would likely be able to defend him in the same place where piratebay trial happened.
I would flee if I was in his position as would anyone with a brain. Especially considering the ridiculous nature of such accusations and the horrible track record of injustice from Swedish justice in the last years (check the piratebay trials for reference). Sweden justice system has been consistently proved to be subservient to US interests.
Your second "accusations" is basically hearsay, and your third accusation is ridiculous and completely false.
Governments feel entitled to secrecy. They are not, and it is past time for them to be accountable for their acts. Assange is not a hero or a saint, just a man who likely did both good and bad things throughout his life as all men, but one of those things happened to be something very useful for mankind.
Then you limit freedom of choice to software that fits the business model of the GPL...why are you having such a problem comprehending that? No I am well aware the GPL only hinders the choice of the developer, I've never disputed that, what you can't seem to understand is that limiting the choice of the developer ultimately limits what they produce and thus the available choice to the user.
Nope again. You seem to be under the illusion that software that is not GPL today wouldn't exist if the developers were forced to comply with GPL standards. Maybe some wouldn't, but most software companies would adapt rather than close doors, as they would have only these two options, rest assured, and the users would gain a lot from the exchange.
No they don't, this would require information on every ingredient and its amount, something that most definitely is not provided.
Sure it is. And for everything. Ever cared to read the side of your Soda Can?
And they can, if they choose GPL software, but you want to eliminate that freedom and restrict them to software that fits the business model of the GPL.
Nah, I want them to choose whatever they want without having to accept arbitrary restrictions from the developer. The only one whose choice is hindered by GPL is the developer, never the user, but apparently you are too dense to understand that even after it being explained time and again to you.
Can, but spoiled food is by definition unfit for consumption.
And therefore there are laws making mandatory for the seller to include all the information necessary to guarantee to the buyer that it is not spoiled. Additionally the government checks the places that sell food and their stock for irregularities. The only way to achieve both these goals regarding software is by opening them so they can be properly examined.
No, it is proof that the system you want is not what users want so you resort to suggesting we force them down that path, making GPL software the only choice for users.
Users do not choose licenses, developers do. Users at most accept the restrictions to use a given software. Defending GPL is not trying to make users choose a given program, but making sure that regardless of what program a user chooses, the developer won't be able to restrict the user right to use it as he wishes and know what it is doing.
I can't sell spoiled food even though people can choose not to buy it. I can't even give it away.
And closed source programs can contain anything inside and be unfit for consumption. The only way you can know that is by opening them.
No, developers can do that, and if it's such a good thing then users will choose it, but because they aren't choosing it you want to force users to choose that option.
This is just a fallacy. You are not giving users any more choice by giving them restrictions. It is an oxymoron.
Sure they should. That is why there exists regulation. I can't sell spoiled food even though people can choose not to buy it. I can't even give it away.
Making developers show exactly what their piece of software does within the user machine, by releasing the source, is just common sense. GPL accomplishes just that and by doing so increases the freedom of the user and his control over his equipment, which is what it is designed to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Again you didn't look for it hard enough. I can easily find as much material as I can chew of Calculus, Analytic Geometry, Analysis, Topology, Set Theory, Linear Algebra, Abstract Algebra, far beyond the necessities of a Graduation course, and all for free, and no I am not talking about scanned Text Books.
XP mode runs over Virtual PC, which is not exactly a well polished and bug free virtual machine implementation. It has quite a collection of issues.
If the financial risk for data disclosure is so great you shouldn't be running windows at all.
Then either you haven't looked for it hard enough or you are looking for material so advanced that it can't really be classified as "College Textbooks" or even "Graduation textbooks", in which case you are probably looking for White Papers and not Text Books anyway.
College textbooks are largely irrelevant in the age of Internet. They only exist to keep publishers and bought teachers rich.
That is a generic problem with fines and big corporations, not only something related with privacy issues. As long as fines are applied at absolute values corporations will only laugh at them and keep doing what they want. Fines should be applied at amounts proportionally to a company's value.
Now, all of this would still entail that there would be these gatekeepers that maintain the actual physical construction and access to this virtual world and that, again, would in and of itself place restrictions on freedoms; these gatekeepers could allow themselves more bandwidth than others, more computers online than others, they could introduce tracking of the people they let through and so on. Basically, the idea you presented is an oxymoron and not possible in the physical world.
Allowing more or less of those things is irrelevant regarding freedom. You seem to confuse communism with freedom. That is an oxymoron. The gatekeepers exist in the real world and are restricted to the real world laws. As long as those laws force net neutrality what exists within is free regardless of what they do. If those laws do not force neutrality, things like TOR come into play and try to compensate it.
Regarding identity. Transmitting information regardless of identity is far from being useless. Information has value on its own. There are means to verify identity if you want to do real world stuff in the Internet. If you do not, identity is a secondary concept.
That works in any system where physical violence can't be used to impose one's will over another. Hacking is just an inconvenience in comparison and can't really take the freedom of anybody in the Internet at long term. Again "responsibility" has nothing to do with freedom. It is a means of arbitrarily limiting freedom in systems where it is impossible to achieve it completely accordingly to someone's sense of right and wrong, which is far from being an absolute concept.
Sure you can. The correlation between freedom and responsibility exists only in your head. In a world where it is impossible to restrict the freedom of others, like a completely anonymous Internet, everybody would be completely free and nobody would be responsible for anything.
It would be better to teach scientists more philosophy than math.
You are not very good in logic, are you? If Math is a subset of philosophy by teaching math you are teaching philosophy.
Philosophy has interesting subjects, and some of its subsets that are unrelated to mathematics and logic may be important on some scientific fields, but math is by far the most important of the philosophy subsets for scientists of any field.
And that is the main limiting factor of science nowadays. Potential advancements in many fields require knowledge in many others from a single person, and the amount of knowledge a single person can have is limited. At some point in the future artificial improvements of brain capacity and knowledge transfer will be required to accomplish any advancement in science.
That said, I disagree with you in one thing. Although giving everyone the exact same knowledge is indeed a bad idea, requiring from every scientist at least a reasonable mathematical knowledge is not. Mathematics is logic and logic is the foundation of science. Nobody that is ignorant about mathematics can call himself a scientist.
Ah, many things can be accomplished by splinting the expertise between two or more people, but many things do require that the expertise be concentrated in a single individual. Especially things that require complex and frequent interactions between them to generate understanding.
There is a motive for hearsay be unusable in court. That is because it means absolutely nothing. It is irrelevant.
The third accusation isn't bullshit. It was widely reported.
It was reported that the data leaked had the names. Nowhere there it is said that he asked for money to take the names of it, as you falsely accuse him of. He only asked help from the Amnesty to edit the names.
His partner outlined how the entire purpose of Wikileaks was to funnel money to Assange
Again hearsay. You seem to like it a lot.
Trial in absence aside, the prosecutors failed to present any real evidence of their charges. It is all based on blatantly inconsistent claims. They have nothing else.
And he may be a coward, but being courageous and being stupid are often one and the same. No collection of international lawyers would likely be able to defend him in the same place where piratebay trial happened.
I would flee if I was in his position as would anyone with a brain. Especially considering the ridiculous nature of such accusations and the horrible track record of injustice from Swedish justice in the last years (check the piratebay trials for reference). Sweden justice system has been consistently proved to be subservient to US interests.
Your second "accusations" is basically hearsay, and your third accusation is ridiculous and completely false.
Governments feel entitled to secrecy. They are not, and it is past time for them to be accountable for their acts. Assange is not a hero or a saint, just a man who likely did both good and bad things throughout his life as all men, but one of those things happened to be something very useful for mankind.
If he was guilty, which is probably not the case, they wouldn't need him to prove his guilty. This is just a smear campaign and nothing else.
It is your "truth". The only one that matters to you. Keep your faith.
If it makes you feel better to believe in this, suit yourself. Your pillow is always there for you.
Maybe in the warped reality in which you believe.
That's not an illusion at all.
It is an illusion, but you are entitled to hold to it with all your strength while you hide your head under the pillow.
Then you limit freedom of choice to software that fits the business model of the GPL...why are you having such a problem comprehending that? No I am well aware the GPL only hinders the choice of the developer, I've never disputed that, what you can't seem to understand is that limiting the choice of the developer ultimately limits what they produce and thus the available choice to the user.
Nope again. You seem to be under the illusion that software that is not GPL today wouldn't exist if the developers were forced to comply with GPL standards. Maybe some wouldn't, but most software companies would adapt rather than close doors, as they would have only these two options, rest assured, and the users would gain a lot from the exchange.
No they don't, this would require information on every ingredient and its amount, something that most definitely is not provided.
Sure it is. And for everything. Ever cared to read the side of your Soda Can?
And they can, if they choose GPL software, but you want to eliminate that freedom and restrict them to software that fits the business model of the GPL.
Nah, I want them to choose whatever they want without having to accept arbitrary restrictions from the developer. The only one whose choice is hindered by GPL is the developer, never the user, but apparently you are too dense to understand that even after it being explained time and again to you.
Can, but spoiled food is by definition unfit for consumption.
And therefore there are laws making mandatory for the seller to include all the information necessary to guarantee to the buyer that it is not spoiled. Additionally the government checks the places that sell food and their stock for irregularities. The only way to achieve both these goals regarding software is by opening them so they can be properly examined.
No, it is proof that the system you want is not what users want so you resort to suggesting we force them down that path, making GPL software the only choice for users.
Users do not choose licenses, developers do. Users at most accept the restrictions to use a given software. Defending GPL is not trying to make users choose a given program, but making sure that regardless of what program a user chooses, the developer won't be able to restrict the user right to use it as he wishes and know what it is doing.
I can't sell spoiled food even though people can choose not to buy it. I can't even give it away.
And closed source programs can contain anything inside and be unfit for consumption. The only way you can know that is by opening them.
No, developers can do that, and if it's such a good thing then users will choose it, but because they aren't choosing it you want to force users to choose that option.
This is just a fallacy. You are not giving users any more choice by giving them restrictions. It is an oxymoron.
Sure they should. That is why there exists regulation. I can't sell spoiled food even though people can choose not to buy it. I can't even give it away.
Making developers show exactly what their piece of software does within the user machine, by releasing the source, is just common sense. GPL accomplishes just that and by doing so increases the freedom of the user and his control over his equipment, which is what it is designed to do.