If it ever cuts loose there will be an epic flood. Did the Beaver Inspectors ever get a look at it? After all Size isn't everything. How many logs went into that thing anyway? Was it checked for strength, flexibility under loads, ability to hold back before gushing? This could be pretty important for anyone below it. Canada's National Honour could be at stake!
I'm sure the beavers appreciate your input. Let me assure you, extensive thought goes into dam design.
It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil."
Not everyone shares the same motivation / principles you do. If your principle is: "respect the author's stated wishes", then it would seem hypocritical to complain about GPL violations but not other copyright infringement. If your principle is: people should be allowed to copy everything freely, it's perfectly consistent to not complain about people infringing copyright in a way that facilitates further copying, but to complain about people infringing copyright in a way that makes further copying more difficult.
I know there's the problem of submitting the taxes to the jurisdiction, but if the problem of figuring out what the taxes are is so hard, they could just include the sales tax in their prices, and then submit taxes based on the maximum tax rate to each jurisdiction. So, if some state charges 9% sales tax, they could just charge everybody 109%, then send 9% to every state. That way, they'd be freed of the administrative burden.
I'm willing to bet that if they were required to do that, they'd discover pretty quickly how easy it is to collect variable levels of sales tax across various districts.
If google offered completely free netbooks, people would use them as disposable, costing google tons of money. Even subsidized hardware like game consoles relies on the fact that the consumer is putting some investment in, so they'll probably increase their investment over time by buying games, and not just throw it out and get a new one every month because they feel like it.
I think the complaint is that the requirement for a Mac computer is a business requirement for Apple to make money, not a technical requirement in order to run the software, except in so much as Apple cripples their software (from the end-user's perspective) in order to achieve their business goals.
I do have a problem when my taxes are raised to fund a mass transit system that I'll never use.
A lot of public transit users feel the same way about cars. I live in a city, and the cost of private parking spaces is pretty high. The city mandates inefficient land use patterns: every landlord *must* provide parking for their apartment complexes. So, effectively, I'm paying for a parking spot--a pretty expensive thing, whether I use it or not, because god forbid they raise parking prices to a price point where the car-drivers would actually be paying for the land they use...
Wikipedia's social processes work best when Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It is not a good repository for primary source information (although WikiSource can work), because we don't have the type of processes built in at preserving or verifying the meta-data of primary source material. It is not a good repository of secondary articles (that is, original research) about primary source material. Secondary articles belong in a place that has fact-checking as part of its mission somehow: a newspaper, a peer-reviewed journal, etc. Wikipedia is a tertiary source: we summarize and synthesize all the secondary source material into a coherent whole.
As an example: if you are a researcher and have found a new letter between George Washington and Benedict Arnold in somebody's basement, you should get it checked out by other people competent at verifying it. Wikipedia would never simply accept you typing out the contents or scanning in an image. It is not competent at verifying such a letter. If you are a researcher and have a new theory about George Washington, you should publish that theory in a scholarly journal of historical research, vetted by other historians; Wikipedia is not the place to argue for that new theory. We're simply not competent at evaluating it. Wikipedia can come along afterward and describe the debate in the peer-reviewed journal, but it's not good at the peer review in the first place.
When the subject is not George Washington, but rather Joe's garage band, this breaks down, because it's impossible to be a tertiary source about something which there are no secondary source materials. What if it turns out there is no Joe's garage band? Joe doesn't even own a guitar? There is no Joe? Even a really bad music magazine would probably suss that out, but Wikipedia wouldn't, because we don't (and pretty much can't) have a good process for editing secondary articles like that. And if it's pretty much impossible for anybody at Wikipedia except Joe (if he even exists) to verify it in any way, then the Wikipedia processes can't work on it.
Wikipedia has to draw the line somewhere (do we want 366 articles on "What Joe ate for breakfast on January 1, 2008", "...January 2, 2008"?) I think a good place to draw it is at our core competence of being a tertiary source.
If you live in a city with lots of rich people, they just throw good stuff away. I've got a washer/dryer, clothes, guitar, rugs, furniture, most free, some low-cost. A penny saved is a penny earned.
It's true that all sources have biases and other issues to work around. However, Wikipedia's biases are different from, say, Britannica. Toward that end, a few of us have set up Researching with Wikipedia, a guide to the process of doing research using Wikipedia.
That page suggests methods of tracking sources, judging how well-vetted and how controversial a particular article is, and generally how researching with Wikipedia is the same and different from researching with other sources.
Change password involved trusting that the version of "make" in its path was not modified:
Here's the bug: Line 317 of changepassword.c, without cleaning its environment in any way, calls system("cd/var/yp && make &>/dev/null"); the Makefile arranges for changepassword.cgi to be setuid root (mode 4755). A user can set $PATH to point to his own make program, set $CONTENT_LENGTH to 512, set $REQUEST_METHOD to POST, and feed...
Each candidate or party who gets on the ballot nominates a slate of electors. If an independent (or third party candidate) won the state, they would have already nominated their slate, usually from their campaign staff or volunteers.
Top of the list is usually the Neutral Point of View, that makes encyclopedia articles read like what we think an encyclopedia article should be: comprehensive.
You do know that there was a blockade at the US Army Systems Center in Natick, right? In addition, the fact that there were over 400 MIT students, plus more than 1000 Harvard students involved, means that, no matter where they went, the simple composition of the protesters made it a relevant protest. (Both Harvard and MIT have gotten war-related research funds. Some of the Harvard and MIT students walked out of classes and jobs paid for, in part, by the DOD.)
But to explain the theory: the idea is that this was is designed to be profitable for elites: for oil companies, for politicians, for the state security apparatus, for all of the "masters of the universe" as they called themselves at the World Economic Forum only a couple of years ago. These actions are designed to make it unprofitable. If going to war on Iraq means that downtown San Francisco is going to be shut down--and even worse, if it means that 400 bright and dedicated MIT students are going to begin dedicating their lives to fighting against you, rather than for you, than maybe you won't do it next time. Whether or not you agree with the theory, this is the theory behind most of the protests.
Loki Software is neither gratis nor libre (am I wrong?), so in your example it's impossible to distinguish whether people are choosing not to buy it because they don't want to pay, or because they, like I, value their freedom.
Tom Reilly is a politician like any other. Does anyone here remember the shaken baby case with the English au pair? Tom Reilly was the prosecutor in that case and got elected AG based on his newfound name recognition. The Microsoft case is an easy decision for him to make because nobody in Massachusetts will seriously oppose it, and he gets tons of media time. I'm glad that the competing influences happen to align Reilly in the direction I want, but it's not really a reflection on him as a person.
I only got there for around half-an-hour, but it was a lot of fun. We sung "Dmitry and the DMCA" (is that right?) to the tune of "Charlie on the MTA", had about 30 signs on sticks, and handed out all the fliers we had. The folks from Ximian and the folks from FSF both helped out alot.
All the info here. And of course, visit the main page for information about all the other cities.
Slashdot Mirror
If it ever cuts loose there will be an epic flood. Did the Beaver Inspectors ever get a look at it? After all Size isn't everything. How many logs went into that thing anyway? Was it checked for strength, flexibility under loads, ability to hold back before gushing? This could be pretty important for anyone below it. Canada's National Honour could be at stake!
I'm sure the beavers appreciate your input. Let me assure you, extensive thought goes into dam design.
Wikileaks edited out 17 minutes of the video
Both the short (edited) and full (unedited) versions are available on the front page of the site they released it from.
It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil."
Not everyone shares the same motivation / principles you do. If your principle is: "respect the author's stated wishes", then it would seem hypocritical to complain about GPL violations but not other copyright infringement. If your principle is: people should be allowed to copy everything freely, it's perfectly consistent to not complain about people infringing copyright in a way that facilitates further copying, but to complain about people infringing copyright in a way that makes further copying more difficult.
They'll get how long you stayed on the page and were actively reading it.
I know there's the problem of submitting the taxes to the jurisdiction, but if the problem of figuring out what the taxes are is so hard, they could just include the sales tax in their prices, and then submit taxes based on the maximum tax rate to each jurisdiction. So, if some state charges 9% sales tax, they could just charge everybody 109%, then send 9% to every state. That way, they'd be freed of the administrative burden.
I'm willing to bet that if they were required to do that, they'd discover pretty quickly how easy it is to collect variable levels of sales tax across various districts.
If google offered completely free netbooks, people would use them as disposable, costing google tons of money. Even subsidized hardware like game consoles relies on the fact that the consumer is putting some investment in, so they'll probably increase their investment over time by buying games, and not just throw it out and get a new one every month because they feel like it.
I think the complaint is that the requirement for a Mac computer is a business requirement for Apple to make money, not a technical requirement in order to run the software, except in so much as Apple cripples their software (from the end-user's perspective) in order to achieve their business goals.
I do have a problem when my taxes are raised to fund a mass transit system that I'll never use.
A lot of public transit users feel the same way about cars. I live in a city, and the cost of private parking spaces is pretty high. The city mandates inefficient land use patterns: every landlord *must* provide parking for their apartment complexes. So, effectively, I'm paying for a parking spot--a pretty expensive thing, whether I use it or not, because god forbid they raise parking prices to a price point where the car-drivers would actually be paying for the land they use...
You'd might as well use a voodoo doll, it would be just as effective and far less expensive.
Been tried. Apparently it doesn't work: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1425321&cid=29926417
This is my justification for deletionism.
Wikipedia's social processes work best when Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It is not a good repository for primary source information (although WikiSource can work), because we don't have the type of processes built in at preserving or verifying the meta-data of primary source material. It is not a good repository of secondary articles (that is, original research) about primary source material. Secondary articles belong in a place that has fact-checking as part of its mission somehow: a newspaper, a peer-reviewed journal, etc. Wikipedia is a tertiary source: we summarize and synthesize all the secondary source material into a coherent whole.
As an example: if you are a researcher and have found a new letter between George Washington and Benedict Arnold in somebody's basement, you should get it checked out by other people competent at verifying it. Wikipedia would never simply accept you typing out the contents or scanning in an image. It is not competent at verifying such a letter. If you are a researcher and have a new theory about George Washington, you should publish that theory in a scholarly journal of historical research, vetted by other historians; Wikipedia is not the place to argue for that new theory. We're simply not competent at evaluating it. Wikipedia can come along afterward and describe the debate in the peer-reviewed journal, but it's not good at the peer review in the first place.
When the subject is not George Washington, but rather Joe's garage band, this breaks down, because it's impossible to be a tertiary source about something which there are no secondary source materials. What if it turns out there is no Joe's garage band? Joe doesn't even own a guitar? There is no Joe? Even a really bad music magazine would probably suss that out, but Wikipedia wouldn't, because we don't (and pretty much can't) have a good process for editing secondary articles like that. And if it's pretty much impossible for anybody at Wikipedia except Joe (if he even exists) to verify it in any way, then the Wikipedia processes can't work on it.
Wikipedia has to draw the line somewhere (do we want 366 articles on "What Joe ate for breakfast on January 1, 2008", "...January 2, 2008"?) I think a good place to draw it is at our core competence of being a tertiary source.
Wikidata is in the works. It will take some development time, though.
The real promised land is Craigslist.
If you live in a city with lots of rich people, they just throw good stuff away. I've got a washer/dryer, clothes, guitar, rugs, furniture, most free, some low-cost. A penny saved is a penny earned.
It's true that all sources have biases and other issues to work around. However, Wikipedia's biases are different from, say, Britannica. Toward that end, a few of us have set up Researching with Wikipedia, a guide to the process of doing research using Wikipedia.
That page suggests methods of tracking sources, judging how well-vetted and how controversial a particular article is, and generally how researching with Wikipedia is the same and different from researching with other sources.
Each candidate or party who gets on the ballot nominates a slate of electors. If an independent (or third party candidate) won the state, they would have already nominated their slate, usually from their campaign staff or volunteers.
Check out what Wikipedians think at Why Wikipedia is so great.
Top of the list is usually the Neutral Point of View, that makes encyclopedia articles read like what we think an encyclopedia article should be: comprehensive.
You do know that there was a blockade at the US Army Systems Center in Natick, right? In addition, the fact that there were over 400 MIT students, plus more than 1000 Harvard students involved, means that, no matter where they went, the simple composition of the protesters made it a relevant protest. (Both Harvard and MIT have gotten war-related research funds. Some of the Harvard and MIT students walked out of classes and jobs paid for, in part, by the DOD.)
But to explain the theory: the idea is that this was is designed to be profitable for elites: for oil companies, for politicians, for the state security apparatus, for all of the "masters of the universe" as they called themselves at the World Economic Forum only a couple of years ago. These actions are designed to make it unprofitable. If going to war on Iraq means that downtown San Francisco is going to be shut down--and even worse, if it means that 400 bright and dedicated MIT students are going to begin dedicating their lives to fighting against you, rather than for you, than maybe you won't do it next time. Whether or not you agree with the theory, this is the theory behind most of the protests.
Loki Software is neither gratis nor libre (am I wrong?), so in your example it's impossible to distinguish whether people are choosing not to buy it because they don't want to pay, or because they, like I, value their freedom.
Tom Reilly is a politician like any other. Does anyone here remember the shaken baby case with the English au pair? Tom Reilly was the prosecutor in that case and got elected AG based on his newfound name recognition. The Microsoft case is an easy decision for him to make because nobody in Massachusetts will seriously oppose it, and he gets tons of media time. I'm glad that the competing influences happen to align Reilly in the direction I want, but it's not really a reflection on him as a person.
All the info here. And of course, visit the main page for information about all the other cities.