What people are talking about is how some perceive the FSF as pushing a set of moral values by means of the legal framework that sustains copyright.
We are not talking about whose person or group is more "moral" or "nicer", after all Linux and the Hurd are GPLed software.
What you are describing is how different groups of people behaving differently. That is very interesting for sure, but has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
he clearly got all entangled there, but kind of made the point: with BSD licensing we get nothing back.
That is all great and good, but such licensing simply is not conducive to development that benefits all the parties involved.
With BSD you work, you give for free and get nothing. If you are OK with that all the power to you, but there are people out there that want something in return. The GPL provides exactly that.
The way Hitler explained why the Aryan nation had to ally itself with Japan is so contrived that any person not devoided of any basic sense of logic know that they were making all up.
Their "moral" rules were demonstrably false (like attributing all the problems of Germany to the Jews), they imposed their "morals" by fear and intimidation, not by any logical arguing.
That you fail completely to see why abortion is right.
Or even infaticide (which abortion isn't by the way)>
Without the context we can't possibly know if such actions are moral or not. You need a moral framework or context in order to decide if an action is moral or not.
The moral framework you use may be based on religion, but it may be based in any social conventions you care to mention (in ancient societies that could not feed all the members of a tribe, perhaps infaticide guaranteed the survival of most members of the tribe since the infant was not viable anyway. Harsh? Yes. Moral? In such a context, maybe).
It is moral absolutists with Ayatollic views of the world that make a mess of what a moral concept is (because the artificial religious construct is that is something goes against the organized religion, it must be amoral, which any person with little tiny bit of logic can see how flawed a concept this is, given the thusends of different religions there are).
You can be a moral person without the need to support any religion.
Your straw man (please point us out the citation where we can see Stallman declaring himself a moral or religious leader) is quite badly made that it inspires pity on his maker frankly.
Which is why Apple used a BSD operating system for OSX (or whatever is called) and MS used BSD licensed stuff to build ther TCP/IP stack (because they were so out of hack about the Internet that they did not have time to design their own implementation).
And so on and so forth.
You talk about innovation, but clearly you only care about bells and whistles, when it comes to basic infrastructure things like Perl, Python and basic services like DNS, and sendmail have their roots firmly in the Open side of things.
Gandhi, Mandela or Aung San Su Yi did not become an imperialist, a racist supremacist or genocidial maniac respectively.
Neither is Stallman & Co becoming an unethical monopoly.
What really irks me is that the EFF are not putting a gun in anybody's head, but there are people *still* spreading this nonsense that somehow people are forced into their licensing regime.
It is tremendously easy folks, they just have to use legalese so the principles have to stand in a court of law if needed, but if you do not want to be inconvenienced by the GPL simply create your product in your own, write a license that you like, and stop whining about not being able to use the work of other people as you see fit.
Dead easy, but the skulls of some people seem to be of a thickness that defies comprehension.
Males are aware about which other males are attractive because they need to know who is a threat and who isn't in the stakes for mating with the opposite sex.
To say males can't tell which other males are attractive is most disingenuous and does not match with normal day to day experience.
the exponential curve shows that people perceive value in the company.
Simply put, MS is stagnated, I am sure institutional investors are losing patience, wasting 5 billion chasing a chimera does not sound like a good choice, and the markets are saying as much.
.... until I could paid for it myself. I got cheapo hand-helds that were popular on my time (you know, machine to play USian football or football, with tiny red LEDs on and off in lieu of players).
But a "toy" costing several hundred dollars? Nope, too irresponsable even if you have the money.
What you are saying is complete, utter and unadulterated nonsense, of the kind ejaculated by people that are completely ignorant about a field but that talk with the cynicism only ignorance can entertain.
A marketing guy just simply hasn't got the background to come up with something like the click wheel, the organization of the menus or the internals to ensure navigation of the interface is smooth even with many GiagaBytes of data.
The marketroids may come with some general desirable traits of a given device, but they have not got a chance in hell to provide the features that make something useful (this requires an engineering and scientific approach).
Trying to go to eat or drink in Barcelona is a complete pain.
Full of cigarette smoke, filthy and stinky.
Now that smoking is banned in the UK and Ireland, many tourist places in Spain will find that people claiming their lungs back will not look kindly at the high tolerance of the filthy addiction.
People that do not have the most basic decency to respect others should be constrained to their own home, where they can kill themselves and their "loved" ones (what kind of love is that?) at their own pleasure.
The ridiculous argument that there should be smoking only places would mean you have to discriminate against non smoking workers, since you could not hire them to serve in a smoking place. This clearly is not possible in a modern society.
Smokers, and people defending their "freedom" (freedom to do what exactly? Kill others?) show the typical signs of addiction: denial and wanting more of the same that is killing them, disregarding the consequences. I do not think a modern society should submit to the desires of such groups of people.
Slashdot Mirror
What people are talking about is how some perceive the FSF as pushing a set of moral values by means of the legal framework that sustains copyright.
We are not talking about whose person or group is more "moral" or "nicer", after all Linux and the Hurd are GPLed software.
What you are describing is how different groups of people behaving differently. That is very interesting for sure, but has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
he clearly got all entangled there, but kind of made the point: with BSD licensing we get nothing back.
That is all great and good, but such licensing simply is not conducive to development that benefits all the parties involved.
With BSD you work, you give for free and get nothing. If you are OK with that all the power to you, but there are people out there that want something in return. The GPL provides exactly that.
Any programmer that does not understand the political consequences of writing software nowadays should not be writing a single line of code.
To bend over and ask for more?
Even their own.
The way Hitler explained why the Aryan nation had to ally itself with Japan is so contrived that any person not devoided of any basic sense of logic know that they were making all up.
Their "moral" rules were demonstrably false (like attributing all the problems of Germany to the Jews), they imposed their "morals" by fear and intimidation, not by any logical arguing.
That you fail completely to see why abortion is right.
Or even infaticide (which abortion isn't by the way)>
Without the context we can't possibly know if such actions are moral or not. You need a moral framework or context in order to decide if an action is moral or not.
The moral framework you use may be based on religion, but it may be based in any social conventions you care to mention (in ancient societies that could not feed all the members of a tribe, perhaps infaticide guaranteed the survival of most members of the tribe since the infant was not viable anyway. Harsh? Yes. Moral? In such a context, maybe).
It is moral absolutists with Ayatollic views of the world that make a mess of what a moral concept is (because the artificial religious construct is that is something goes against the organized religion, it must be amoral, which any person with little tiny bit of logic can see how flawed a concept this is, given the thusends of different religions there are).
Welcome to the XXIst century, glad to see you are rediscovering Philosophy and Ethics.
Morality and religion are not the same thing.
You can be a moral person without the need to support any religion.
Your straw man (please point us out the citation where we can see Stallman declaring himself a moral or religious leader) is quite badly made that it inspires pity on his maker frankly.
Which is why Apple used a BSD operating system for OSX (or whatever is called) and MS used BSD licensed stuff to build ther TCP/IP stack (because they were so out of hack about the Internet that they did not have time to design their own implementation).
And so on and so forth.
You talk about innovation, but clearly you only care about bells and whistles, when it comes to basic infrastructure things like Perl, Python and basic services like DNS, and sendmail have their roots firmly in the Open side of things.
Gandhi, Mandela or Aung San Su Yi did not become an imperialist, a racist supremacist or genocidial maniac respectively.
Neither is Stallman & Co becoming an unethical monopoly.
What really irks me is that the EFF are not putting a gun in anybody's head, but there are people *still* spreading this nonsense that somehow people are forced into their licensing regime.
It is tremendously easy folks, they just have to use legalese so the principles have to stand in a court of law if needed, but if you do not want to be inconvenienced by the GPL simply create your product in your own, write a license that you like, and stop whining about not being able to use the work of other people as you see fit.
Dead easy, but the skulls of some people seem to be of a thickness that defies comprehension.
Because discussion of ideas is what advance knowledge.
Closing the source advances nobody but the software manufacturer, and in many situations, not even they benefit from this kind of licensing.
And I have an HP calculator that can't run Java neither.
....
Java is an adulterated piece of crapola, I am telling you
Males are aware about which other males are attractive because they need to know who is a threat and who isn't in the stakes for mating with the opposite sex.
To say males can't tell which other males are attractive is most disingenuous and does not match with normal day to day experience.
Enough said frankly. You are not only ignorant (hormonary deficiencies related to homesexuality? Ugh....) but aesthetically challenged.
Such an idiotic comment could be uttered.
Check MS stock performance:
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=MSFT (check Max).
That is a steady state system curve for you. This means the company has matured and is not finding anything innovative.
Look how an innovative company looks:
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=GOOG
the exponential curve shows that people perceive value in the company.
Simply put, MS is stagnated, I am sure institutional investors are losing patience, wasting 5 billion chasing a chimera does not sound like a good choice, and the markets are saying as much.
The only think I will say is that Chichen Itza is far more important for multitude of reason.
As for where is more artistry involved, please, this is the 21sth century, those arguments where left behind long time ago.
If the new, expensive system falls down in price, that forces prices of older systems down as well.
No rocket science frankly
.... until I could paid for it myself. I got cheapo hand-helds that were popular on my time (you know, machine to play USian football or football, with tiny red LEDs on and off in lieu of players).
But a "toy" costing several hundred dollars? Nope, too irresponsable even if you have the money.
I have some background in human interface design.
What you are saying is complete, utter and unadulterated nonsense, of the kind ejaculated by people that are completely ignorant about a field but that talk with the cynicism only ignorance can entertain.
A marketing guy just simply hasn't got the background to come up with something like the click wheel, the organization of the menus or the internals to ensure navigation of the interface is smooth even with many GiagaBytes of data.
The marketroids may come with some general desirable traits of a given device, but they have not got a chance in hell to provide the features that make something useful (this requires an engineering and scientific approach).
I want to buy a phone. I do not want to buy a new subscription (the current one I have is fine, thanks).
I simply will not subject to such blantant practice, thank you very much.
Sorry, can't hear you...
http://www.davidcameronmp.com/
From there:
"
David is always keen to hear from his constituents and will gladly respond to any concerns that you wish to raise.
Write to:
David Cameron M.P., House of Commons, Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA
Telephone:
020 7219 3475 and 0207 219 1945
Fax:
0207 219 1506
Email:
camerond@parliament.uk
"
Trying to go to eat or drink in Barcelona is a complete pain.
Full of cigarette smoke, filthy and stinky.
Now that smoking is banned in the UK and Ireland, many tourist places in Spain will find that people claiming their lungs back will not look kindly at the high tolerance of the filthy addiction.
Or in my clothes.
It is now a lifestyle choice. Is health and life preservation.
People that do not have the most basic decency to respect others should be constrained to their own home, where they can kill themselves and their "loved" ones (what kind of love is that?) at their own pleasure.
The ridiculous argument that there should be smoking only places would mean you have to discriminate against non smoking workers, since you could not hire them to serve in a smoking place. This clearly is not possible in a modern society.
Smokers, and people defending their "freedom" (freedom to do what exactly? Kill others?) show the typical signs of addiction: denial and wanting more of the same that is killing them, disregarding the consequences. I do not think a modern society should submit to the desires of such groups of people.