In case you didn't know, you can't use code in Linux unless it's GPL, otherwise you would violate the GPL. It's not an issue of like and dislike.
This is exactly my point about moral hypocrisy. How is that free? The GPL isn't free. Once you incorporate even a tiny piece of GPL code into your project, it's tainted forever.
All I'm saying is let's call the GPL what it really is, just another restrictive license. Don't try and say the GPL is free and open, don't try to tell me the GPL is better than anything else because it isn't. It's only open as long as you follow very strict guidelines about what you can and can't do with it.
Everyone seems to be completely missing the point here. As someone else pointed out, GPL supporters love to claim the moral high ground when it comes to comparing the GPL to anything proprietary and they love to say how the GPL promotes sharing and openness. So how do you claim the moral high ground when you just took someone else's project and forked it so that they can't use it the way they originally intended?
So what if that's what if that's what the BSD license allows people to do! It's about moral hypocrisy, pure and simple. How can you claim to be free and open when you just basically told the original author that he/she needs to follow your rules in order to benefit from anything you add to it. It wasn't your project to begin with, but you're arrogant enough to fork the project and slap your own license on it, for what? Just because you don't like the BSD license?
Now what happens if those classified documents reveal the fact that the government has been conducting illegal activities, say something like wiretaps with no court orders? How is that not just another form of whistleblowing?
Personally, I'm not willing to give the government carte blanche to do whatever they want by just making it classified.
Freedom of the press exists as a quasi-check on the government and I believe the current administration is trying to supress the presses ability to gain access to documents to avoid public scrutiny.
When was the last time the press published something classified that actually harmed this country as opposed to bringing to light some kind of power grab by the administration?
First and foremost, courts exist to make sure that the Constitution is not corrupted by lawmakers who might have overstepped their bounds. This is the whole idea behind checks and balances.
After that, they have to determine the intent of a particular law. Only then can they uphold a law.
And you don't see the problem with this? Are you going to sacrifice your privacy for freedom from spam? Let me guess, you're one of the those people who argue "If you have nothing to hide then why do you need privacy?"
My biggest problem with IPv^6 is the deliberate hobbling of newer protocols to try and force the move to IPv6 on people. Take SIP for example, which has no built in support for NAT because either 1) they were too lazy to tackle it or 2) they were too arrogant and assumed everyone would just jump on the IPv6 bandwagon just because they were told to do so. The reason there's no rush to v6 is because the internet works just fine right now. What is it about v6 that's going to change the internet experience for my parents? Nothing.
People have been predicting the depletion of v4 addresses for 5 years now but NAT has changed that. My question is, why aren't new protocols deliberately taking NAT into account so that we don't have to create hacks to get around this limitation later?
History is full of companies trying to start over from scratch because it wasn't done exactly right the first time, but then end up bankrupt because they didn't stop to consider the most important part: the enduser. How many people are going to want to buy new routers or new dsl or cable modems because they don't support v6? And before anyone says that manufacturers could just offer a firmware upgrade, how many of them are going to do that when they could just as easily use it as an excuse to sell new equipment?
There might be advantages but all I hear on slashdot are the sheep. How about we talk about the disadvantages?
That's not called functionality, it's called choice.
With folders, you don't even have the option of leaving the message in the inbox because then there's no point in even having a filter unless you're forwarding the email. You're complaining about the fact that the checkbox to skip the inbox in gmail isn't automatically checked.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly my point about moral hypocrisy. How is that free? The GPL isn't free. Once you incorporate even a tiny piece of GPL code into your project, it's tainted forever.
All I'm saying is let's call the GPL what it really is, just another restrictive license. Don't try and say the GPL is free and open, don't try to tell me the GPL is better than anything else because it isn't. It's only open as long as you follow very strict guidelines about what you can and can't do with it.
Everyone seems to be completely missing the point here. As someone else pointed out, GPL supporters love to claim the moral high ground when it comes to comparing the GPL to anything proprietary and they love to say how the GPL promotes sharing and openness. So how do you claim the moral high ground when you just took someone else's project and forked it so that they can't use it the way they originally intended?
So what if that's what if that's what the BSD license allows people to do! It's about moral hypocrisy, pure and simple. How can you claim to be free and open when you just basically told the original author that he/she needs to follow your rules in order to benefit from anything you add to it. It wasn't your project to begin with, but you're arrogant enough to fork the project and slap your own license on it, for what? Just because you don't like the BSD license?
Now what happens if those classified documents reveal the fact that the government has been conducting illegal activities, say something like wiretaps with no court orders? How is that not just another form of whistleblowing?
Personally, I'm not willing to give the government carte blanche to do whatever they want by just making it classified.
Freedom of the press exists as a quasi-check on the government and I believe the current administration is trying to supress the presses ability to gain access to documents to avoid public scrutiny.
When was the last time the press published something classified that actually harmed this country as opposed to bringing to light some kind of power grab by the administration?
First and foremost, courts exist to make sure that the Constitution is not corrupted by lawmakers who might have overstepped their bounds. This is the whole idea behind checks and balances.
After that, they have to determine the intent of a particular law. Only then can they uphold a law.
And you don't see the problem with this? Are you going to sacrifice your privacy for freedom from spam? Let me guess, you're one of the those people who argue "If you have nothing to hide then why do you need privacy?"
Think of it as the death of privacy.
My biggest problem with IPv^6 is the deliberate hobbling of newer protocols to try and force the move to IPv6 on people. Take SIP for example, which has no built in support for NAT because either 1) they were too lazy to tackle it or 2) they were too arrogant and assumed everyone would just jump on the IPv6 bandwagon just because they were told to do so. The reason there's no rush to v6 is because the internet works just fine right now. What is it about v6 that's going to change the internet experience for my parents? Nothing.
People have been predicting the depletion of v4 addresses for 5 years now but NAT has changed that. My question is, why aren't new protocols deliberately taking NAT into account so that we don't have to create hacks to get around this limitation later?
History is full of companies trying to start over from scratch because it wasn't done exactly right the first time, but then end up bankrupt because they didn't stop to consider the most important part: the enduser. How many people are going to want to buy new routers or new dsl or cable modems because they don't support v6? And before anyone says that manufacturers could just offer a firmware upgrade, how many of them are going to do that when they could just as easily use it as an excuse to sell new equipment?
There might be advantages but all I hear on slashdot are the sheep. How about we talk about the disadvantages?
That's not called functionality, it's called choice.
With folders, you don't even have the option of leaving the message in the inbox because then there's no point in even having a filter unless you're forwarding the email. You're complaining about the fact that the checkbox to skip the inbox in gmail isn't automatically checked.
Let's do the math shall we?
8 0880.htm) 247mil people.
China's middle class at 19% of 1.3bil:
(http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/gyzg/t
India's middle class at roughly the same percentage, 19% of 1bil: 190mil people.
The middle class of the US at 45% of 300mil: (http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html) 135mil
Which market would be more attractive to you as a handset maker?