it's like saying a star football player should kick back some of his wages to the NFL because if not for the NFL, he wouldn't be able to earn money playing football
If there were no other way to fund the NFL, then that'd be exactly right
Suppose the players were the ones receiving ticket and media revenues but the NFL was building and maintaining the stadiums, negotiating the media contracts. Somebody's got to pay to the people doing that work. There's no one else to do it.
If you're going to complain about taxes, talk about the ratio of discretionary income to taxes paid. That's the true measure of pain. It's indecent to make people choose between food and taxes, so don't consider necessities when assessing fairness. Steve Forbes proposed a flat deduction to cover them, with a flat tax on the rest, no exceptions.
There's the ISS live stream which isn't on 24/7 and isn't always an Earth view then, but it's the best I've found. Plays with VLC on linux, too. On Windows you can make the live video your desktop. That's, uhhh, distracting.
Won't work. Prices would have to drop to match the new baseline. That's deflation, it's very not good even at a slow slide: money appreciates without being loaned, just by hoarding it. It's the problem with the gold standard; at least with gold you can generally dig up more or launch wars of conquest to take more.
You want to start out with one bitcoin equal to a million dollars? That's what it would take, and that wouldn't cover the Earth's economy even now (~74e14 cents, bitcoins can only go to 21e14 if your assertion is correct).
I think it isn't the so much the government itself, though it does collect the taxes for most of the people in those examples, but just look at all those people getting paid. The drugs won't get legalized because the drug war is a jobs program. We can't drop it or the real ones because the unemployment rate would spike. We'd be lots better off with a new WPA. Fix infrastructure and make things of lasting value.
Because you can grow them in your backyard, or cook them up in a workshop any chemistry student could have. Maybe cocaine and heroin could be monopolized just because the plants don't grow everywhere, but so what? Let it happen, nobody cares. Diamonds are monopolized, nobody cares. Coke and heroin are numbers 2 and 3 on the NIH's most-addictive list though not even close to tobacco. But pot and its kin, MDMA, LSD, mushrooms, peyote, God knows what else? There's no way they get monopolized. The gangs going to raid all of suburbia? Hunt down grad students in every college in the land?
Really, why do you think they're illegal in the first place? And, please, show some self-respect: don't spout the drug-warriors' party line. Take away the thrill of forbidden fruit, the actually bad ones will drop right off the radar, far down into the noise of all the other ways kids get themselves killed. Actually, they're already down there, but never mind that. Tops of course is driving a car, and people hand their kid the keys how often? What do they say? "Drive safe, drive responsibly, if you get in trouble, call me."
I think they're illegal because the ones that have intrinsic barriers to entry as a business can't compete.
Yup, seems I missed that. Still doesn't seem funny, but then my response was pointless, and unkind. I'm sorry I dumped the snarly mood on it either way.
I don't think so. What Microsoft did to get OOXML passed is utterly corrupt, and to me at least it carries the same stench of thuggery. Microsoft's management hires good people the way some combatants surround themselves with schoolchildren.
GP's probably got Facebook's campaigns misattributed to Microsoft, but I think he misused the term patent trolling only somewhat: Microsoft has been claiming patent infringement (~we have here a list of 235 patent infringements in Linux~) without ever specifying what patents and (most tellingly) without demanding any changes. If there is any infringement going on, they plainly don't want it to stop. So they're using patents the way trolls use inflammatory statements, to derail and disrupt, damaging others with the idea that it somehow promotes themselves. A lot of people are gullible enough that the tactic works, in the short term anyway.
Same kind of behavior before, during and after: at least until their management has undergone a complete transfusion, they haven't changed.
God, and you got modded up for that? Counting from zero... 1023... round number... computers... penny drop yet? Well just wait a bit, maybe ten, it will.
Profit extraction is not wealth creation. The measure is not the thing. Metrics can be decoupled, gamed, perverted. What responsible people do in an unregulated market is one thing. What the people advocating lately do is something else entirely. Believing that all wealthy people are good, or that bad people with wealth won't do horrible damage, or that government shouldn't stop them, is beyond merely naive.
So to make his first substantial claim incorrect or inaccurate, claim 1 of Apple's patent can't be what it appears to be. Reading the file wrapper I see that the USPTO rejected that claim so Apple cancelled it. Am I reading that right?
His point doesn't depend on the intricacies of filing dates, so he used four words where you used forty and got it close enough. Your description is much more precise, but pounding it in as you did is inane.
I know that freedom cannot survive in any society large enough to afford anonymity without legally enforced restrictions. That doesn't mean I think they're the same thing. But we're going in circles now; you're not thinking. There's something screwy with comment links atm, or maybe it's just chrome and slashdot not getting along as usual, anyway links to the comment I mean go to a different one so find "Who equated regulation with freedom?" above.
If you can't make your argument without putting your thumb on the scale like that, why not just admit you posted thoughtlessly in the first place and got smacked for it? Arguing the way you're doing isn't clever. Go away. Do your troll victory dance and revel in being king-for-a-day of the.tribe so completely worthless you don't even know you exist unless you're pissing people off. Mutter to yourself and go try to find people a little less acquainted with reality to prey on. Just, please, don't say you're in it so deep as to actually believe that, or any of the other psychotic distortions you just posted. Do you actually equate liberty with the absence of regulation, as if distinguishing liberty from anarchy somehow diminishes liberty?
The person I cited [equated regulation with freedom]
No, he didn't. Where what you say bears any resemblance to reality you're equivocating in almost every word. Enforcing sale terms is a matter of law, of regulation, the difference between the two is a technicality here; it doesn't matter here whether Congress wrote the rule or delegated the writing of it. Laws aren't freedom, but they're necessary to preserve it out here in the real world.
I just don't approve of [laws] in the name of freedom.
I believe you just worked yourself around to saying that writing laws to secure the blessings of liberty is anathema to you. Would that be one of the Franklin quotes that can be damned?
Who equated regulation with freedom? That's every bit as simpleminded and hotheaded a rendition as what prompted your first post, and it's a lot more dangerous. It leads cretins to equate the absence of regulation with freedom. Everyone starts with childish, ignorant wishes, over time they learn better and their wishes grow a bit of sophistication, or they die. But if you think government regulation is antithetical to liberty, you're getting your view of history from the people government was instituted to protect you against. You just don't know it, yet.
So your objection is to a fantasy world that doesn't exist? Hey, I've got some pretty strange fantasies myself. People I share them with leave the junk on the floor and we have a good time with the good parts. The bad parts of mine aren't as bad as the bad parts of Stallman's, but then again the good parts of mine, the parts that actually get taken up and adopted, don't change the world. The GPL's one of the good parts of this world, and it's yours if you want it.
Did you have a problem with the real GPL, in this world, or are you posting just because you like to rave against fantasies?
Nothing requires you to give away your own source code. Nothing requires you to agree with Stallman. Don't like the terms? Don't use the product. Only if you think you have a right to do anything you want with other people's work do you have a problem with that.
I never said anything about adding a little and taking over.
That, roughly, is the only behavior the GPL restricts. You can't distribute other people's work on terms you dictate. If you don't want to do that, you have no beef with the GPL. "Replying to [your] argument" does not mean "accepting the lies on which it's based".
Adding a few pennies to the bank vault doesn't make the vault yours.
You can distribute your own work under any terms you like. You just can't do that with other people's work, not even by sprinkling a little of your own on it.
There's a word for this feeling you're expressing, that anything you touch belongs to you.
Slashdot Mirror
I make 100% of my income overseas. I live overseas.
How much tax would you pay if you were a citizen there?
I don't use any US public infrastructure, however...
However you do use theirs, while paying, if anything, substantially less than what citizens pay for it.
it's like saying a star football player should kick back some of his wages to the NFL because if not for the NFL, he wouldn't be able to earn money playing football
If there were no other way to fund the NFL, then that'd be exactly right
Suppose the players were the ones receiving ticket and media revenues but the NFL was building and maintaining the stadiums, negotiating the media contracts. Somebody's got to pay to the people doing that work. There's no one else to do it.
If you're going to complain about taxes, talk about the ratio of discretionary income to taxes paid. That's the true measure of pain. It's indecent to make people choose between food and taxes, so don't consider necessities when assessing fairness. Steve Forbes proposed a flat deduction to cover them, with a flat tax on the rest, no exceptions.
There's the ISS live stream which isn't on 24/7 and isn't always an Earth view then, but it's the best I've found. Plays with VLC on linux, too. On Windows you can make the live video your desktop. That's, uhhh, distracting.
Won't work. Prices would have to drop to match the new baseline. That's deflation, it's very not good even at a slow slide: money appreciates without being loaned, just by hoarding it. It's the problem with the gold standard; at least with gold you can generally dig up more or launch wars of conquest to take more.
You want to start out with one bitcoin equal to a million dollars? That's what it would take, and that wouldn't cover the Earth's economy even now (~74e14 cents, bitcoins can only go to 21e14 if your assertion is correct).
For the first time, I wondered why we can't mod stories up.
I think it isn't the so much the government itself, though it does collect the taxes for most of the people in those examples, but just look at all those people getting paid. The drugs won't get legalized because the drug war is a jobs program. We can't drop it or the real ones because the unemployment rate would spike. We'd be lots better off with a new WPA. Fix infrastructure and make things of lasting value.
Because you can grow them in your backyard, or cook them up in a workshop any chemistry student could have. Maybe cocaine and heroin could be monopolized just because the plants don't grow everywhere, but so what? Let it happen, nobody cares. Diamonds are monopolized, nobody cares. Coke and heroin are numbers 2 and 3 on the NIH's most-addictive list though not even close to tobacco. But pot and its kin, MDMA, LSD, mushrooms, peyote, God knows what else? There's no way they get monopolized. The gangs going to raid all of suburbia? Hunt down grad students in every college in the land?
Really, why do you think they're illegal in the first place? And, please, show some self-respect: don't spout the drug-warriors' party line. Take away the thrill of forbidden fruit, the actually bad ones will drop right off the radar, far down into the noise of all the other ways kids get themselves killed. Actually, they're already down there, but never mind that. Tops of course is driving a car, and people hand their kid the keys how often? What do they say? "Drive safe, drive responsibly, if you get in trouble, call me."
I think they're illegal because the ones that have intrinsic barriers to entry as a business can't compete.
Yup, seems I missed that. Still doesn't seem funny, but then my response was pointless, and unkind. I'm sorry I dumped the snarly mood on it either way.
The fifth sentence in TFA:
IE 10 is available as a Metro style app and as a desktop app. The desktop app continues to fully support all plug-ins and extensions.
I don't think so. What Microsoft did to get OOXML passed is utterly corrupt, and to me at least it carries the same stench of thuggery. Microsoft's management hires good people the way some combatants surround themselves with schoolchildren.
GP's probably got Facebook's campaigns misattributed to Microsoft, but I think he misused the term patent trolling only somewhat: Microsoft has been claiming patent infringement (~we have here a list of 235 patent infringements in Linux~) without ever specifying what patents and (most tellingly) without demanding any changes. If there is any infringement going on, they plainly don't want it to stop. So they're using patents the way trolls use inflammatory statements, to derail and disrupt, damaging others with the idea that it somehow promotes themselves. A lot of people are gullible enough that the tactic works, in the short term anyway.
Same kind of behavior before, during and after: at least until their management has undergone a complete transfusion, they haven't changed.
God, and you got modded up for that? Counting from zero ... 1023 ... round number ... computers ... penny drop yet? Well just wait a bit, maybe ten, it will.
Profit extraction is not wealth creation. The measure is not the thing. Metrics can be decoupled, gamed, perverted. What responsible people do in an unregulated market is one thing. What the people advocating lately do is something else entirely. Believing that all wealthy people are good, or that bad people with wealth won't do horrible damage, or that government shouldn't stop them, is beyond merely naive.
Spend-and-spend has worked so much better than tax-and-spend.
So to make his first substantial claim incorrect or inaccurate, claim 1 of Apple's patent can't be what it appears to be. Reading the file wrapper I see that the USPTO rejected that claim so Apple cancelled it. Am I reading that right?
His point doesn't depend on the intricacies of filing dates, so he used four words where you used forty and got it close enough. Your description is much more precise, but pounding it in as you did is inane.
Wish I hadn't commented on this topic, that's the sanest post here.
Trust can be abused, so let's outlaw trust, is that the logic?
Why restrict this to teachers?
Absolutely. Think how much cleaner and safer the world would be without excessive regulation!
I know that freedom cannot survive in any society large enough to afford anonymity without legally enforced restrictions. That doesn't mean I think they're the same thing. But we're going in circles now; you're not thinking. There's something screwy with comment links atm, or maybe it's just chrome and slashdot not getting along as usual, anyway links to the comment I mean go to a different one so find "Who equated regulation with freedom?" above.
GPLv3, which is a legally enforced regulation
If you can't make your argument without putting your thumb on the scale like that, why not just admit you posted thoughtlessly in the first place and got smacked for it? Arguing the way you're doing isn't clever. Go away. Do your troll victory dance and revel in being king-for-a-day of the .tribe so completely worthless you don't even know you exist unless you're pissing people off. Mutter to yourself and go try to find people a little less acquainted with reality to prey on. Just, please, don't say you're in it so deep as to actually believe that, or any of the other psychotic distortions you just posted. Do you actually equate liberty with the absence of regulation, as if distinguishing liberty from anarchy somehow diminishes liberty?
The person I cited [equated regulation with freedom]
No, he didn't. Where what you say bears any resemblance to reality you're equivocating in almost every word. Enforcing sale terms is a matter of law, of regulation, the difference between the two is a technicality here; it doesn't matter here whether Congress wrote the rule or delegated the writing of it. Laws aren't freedom, but they're necessary to preserve it out here in the real world.
I just don't approve of [laws] in the name of freedom.
I believe you just worked yourself around to saying that writing laws to secure the blessings of liberty is anathema to you. Would that be one of the Franklin quotes that can be damned?
Who equated regulation with freedom? That's every bit as simpleminded and hotheaded a rendition as what prompted your first post, and it's a lot more dangerous. It leads cretins to equate the absence of regulation with freedom. Everyone starts with childish, ignorant wishes, over time they learn better and their wishes grow a bit of sophistication, or they die. But if you think government regulation is antithetical to liberty, you're getting your view of history from the people government was instituted to protect you against. You just don't know it, yet.
and I never said otherwise
So your objection is to a fantasy world that doesn't exist? Hey, I've got some pretty strange fantasies myself. People I share them with leave the junk on the floor and we have a good time with the good parts. The bad parts of mine aren't as bad as the bad parts of Stallman's, but then again the good parts of mine, the parts that actually get taken up and adopted, don't change the world. The GPL's one of the good parts of this world, and it's yours if you want it.
Did you have a problem with the real GPL, in this world, or are you posting just because you like to rave against fantasies?
Nothing requires you to give away your own source code. Nothing requires you to agree with Stallman. Don't like the terms? Don't use the product. Only if you think you have a right to do anything you want with other people's work do you have a problem with that.
I never said anything about adding a little and taking over.
That, roughly, is the only behavior the GPL restricts. You can't distribute other people's work on terms you dictate. If you don't want to do that, you have no beef with the GPL. "Replying to [your] argument" does not mean "accepting the lies on which it's based".
Adding a few pennies to the bank vault doesn't make the vault yours.
You can distribute your own work under any terms you like. You just can't do that with other people's work, not even by sprinkling a little of your own on it.
There's a word for this feeling you're expressing, that anything you touch belongs to you.