Every page has a history. It's possible to cite a page at a certain time and guarantee that it will be displayed regardless of what changes are made to the article. This, in addition to a diff system (and discussion), makes it better in some ways than hard print, because it allows the reader to map changes over time and consensus/disagreements over contentious topics.
1) You can reference any page unless an admin decides they don't like that page, then poof, it's gone.
2) Unless the people coming to consensus a) have expert training in the area of contention, and b) are performing independent experiments, talking about consensus is just stupid.
Many people also pay (nothing, of course) for Windows XP, but I was one of those suckers who paid extra for a dell laptop with a legit installation of XP pro because it was a bitch to find ANY laptop which wasn't already loaded with Vista!
You are a sucker. I've purchased two copies of Vista. One retail and one with a new laptop. In the license agreement that came with both of them, there is a clause that allows you to use Windows XP instead of Vista. No need to pay extra.
Re-read the "article." Sounds like the people who interacted with the farmer were told to stay off. And later a truck drove on the property that had visible guns. From what I can glean no one that the trespassers interacted with had a visible gun. Just that they saw a gun in a truck on the property.
The children need to grow up. I wonder how upset they each time the find new evidence that the real world isn't an amusement park there for their entertainment, sanitized and clean and all about hugging them.
But as a politically-involved person in Chicago, I can tell you that it's anything but a machine.
Chicago is known for it's political machinations. You may call it "anything but a machine" but the slightest amount of research will expose that almost all politics in Chicago is driven by back room dealing.
But he brought people together then just as he seeks to do as president.
But he's not trying to bring people together now. He's trying to get elected and says pretty much anything that he thinks will get him elected. Once in a while he slips up and says things like his categorizing people's beliefs and opinions as being caused by bitterness. Or that they eat too much and consume too many resources. You have to wonder how much he wants people to be involved when he holds such a low opinion of them and, considering his profligate lifestyle, thinks that they are less deserving of having a good life than he is.
In response to the question above yours, which is a good one, many of the activities you're asking about overlapped. For example, he was a professor at the Univ. of Chicago Law School during the entire time he was employed on a case-by-case basis by a law firm. Much of the community organizing took place during this period of time as well.
I'll be the last person to say that he hasn't worked hard. But I'll be right in line to point out that what he works hard on is furthering his ambitions. If you don't believe that he attempts to leverage class, race and religion for his own gain, then you haven't been paying attention.
Most of the time he gives shallow, uninteresting speeches. They contain the usual rah-rah points and let's all be friends statements. But once in a while stuff just pops out that really makes you wonder. Where do comments about people being bitter come from, if he believes what he is saying about bringing people together? It's in such stark contrast to his normal message that, if he had any actual belief in his message, slips like that would never happen because the ideas just wouldn't be there. It's not a matter of poor word choice, it's the whole idea.
He also is a colleague and friend of William Ayers. Or at least Obama was his friend as long as Ayers could advance Obama's ambition. Then he chose a racist ranter as a mentor until he couldn't advance Obama's ambition, then it's so long Jeremiah.
Look. If you examine Obama's positions and believe they best represent what you want for you, then go ahead and vote for him. But if you're voting for him because he makes you all warm and fuzzy inside, please don't even vote. We need informed voters who have a view beyond happy feelings.
Can you tell me what you think a community organizer is? You seem to think he was out there helping people out and generally being of service to the community. Which is wrong. Look at where he was and who he was working for: the Chicago political machine. His community organizing was all about getting people to show up and vote for the politician of the machine's choice. When he ran for office, his community organizing consisted of getting all his opponents removed from the ballot so that the community had exactly one person to vote for, him.
If you want to talk service, then go ahead and talk service but don't tell the world that pushing class, race and religious division in order to get votes is some kind of community service.
I don't believe that once Obama graduated from law school, that he ever made less than $60,000 a year. And I'm curious as to which twenty years he spent as a "community organizer"? I'm curious because since 1993 he's worked variously as an associate lawyer or held a state or federal senate seat. None of which are going to be paying $30,000 a year. The twenty years before 1993 would have been 1973 - 1993. Given that he was born in 1961, I'm somewhat suspicious that he was community organizing when he was 12 years old.
Viacom's case seems to be based on the fact that it's too hard for them to keep up with all the copyright infringing materials posted on YouTube, and therefore YouTube should bear the burden of distinguishing what is and is not infringing.
I'm curious. Let's say ChoicePoint decides they'd like to do more business. So what they decide to do is establish a website called ReportOnConsumers.com. Where anyone can upload a document about anyone. Of course they want to make it possible for people to properly police their information and control who gets access to it, so they provide a nice email where all you have to do is drop them a line proving that you're the person identified in a particular posting and they'll go ahead and remove it. Of course anyone can reupload it immediately. All you have to do to control it is continually review every posted report and submit a proper takedown request.
Still think like the idea of the responsibility being yours?
Please explain.... Precisely, because they are being paid for their time, much like a plumber doesn't own your pipes when he's done installing your sink. It's the service of coding that's being charged for.
From the perspective of the programmer who is selling his time, at the end of the day they (almost always) have nothing to give away. So where is the argument for giving away the non-scarce item? If you have something to give away, then you probably haven't been paid for your development time. That's what I mean when I say that Techdirt has a problem with their argument.
Maybe. There are few circumstances where a customer will allow you to keep copyright to the code. Two of them are:
1) It's something that they could buy, but you're selling it to them cheaper. Or 2) It gives them no business advantage over their competitors.
In case 1, you're going to continually fight a battle trying to price your sale lower than the competition. In case 2, you'll find an upper limit on what the customer is willing to pay.
And what's the value of something that doesn't exist? Until someone comes along and creates the work you consider to be available in infinite quantity, it's only available on zero quantity. Given that that is the extreme end of scarcity no amount of money will allow you to buy it. Does that make the act of creation of infinite value?
Maybe you shouldn't try and hang your economic philosophy on old ideas of supply and demand?
I wonder at Techdirt's economic and business background. They make a fundamental error in they're argument that programmers are being paid for their time and not for their code. The problem is that most every programmer who is being paid for their time, doesn't own the code they produce. Those who are contracting aren't being paid for their time, they're being paid for a solution to a problem. The remaining few who are paid for their time but negotiated up front for a free license are so rare that they're basically ignorable.
The fact that they've made such a basic blunder in understanding the actual mechanics of the industry makes me wonder, even in the presence of their semi-sophisticated talk of scarcity, what they actually know about business.
Have you considered the possibility that you're a moron? If you want to go on a rant, you'd better make sure that the topics you bring up have any connection to reality. I mean it took almost five seconds to put "pretty baby amazon.com" into Yahoo and click on the first link in the results. Saying it hardly raised an eyebrow is in complete contrast to all the editorial reviews of the movie that state it was controversial.
Finally there is no single age of consent in America. There are a whole bunch of different rules as the age of consent is determined by the states. According to this chart, in general the US compares pretty much evenly with the majority of the world.
That's like three strikes right there. I guess you're out.
If the information is what it sounds like, it's information about the customer's activity. There'd be a very difficult argument that you own that data instead of the customer owning it. If the customer did zero data entry, no batch loading, EDI, programmatic inserts and updates, or other data loads into the database would there be anything for this guy to provide his customer? Sounds like he's providing a IT support service not a data source.
Unless there was a negotiation up front with specific line items to be delivered (certain types of off-line reports, certain types of web enabled reports, etc.) then just butch up and give them what they want. If you don't you're going to lose your customer. If you're a dick about it, you're going to lose your customer and get bad word of mouth.
Think of it this way: if you believe you should have control of and access to your medical files, credit reports, and bank records; then this customer should have the same with their data. Just make sure they can only see their data.
The "many eyes make bugs shallow" statement shows a lack of understanding of the nature of the problem. Using your corollary of peer review, the purpose isn't to get a lot of eyeballs looking at the article but to get knowledgeable experts to consider the article. The same applies to code. If your reviewers don't understand the code, their eyeballs are worthless.
One area where your comparison falls down is that in peer review there is a certain accountability that the peer review is actually happening. In open source code, you don't know that anyone is actually reviewing the source. Unless you can point at someone who has substantial incentive to do the code review, then it didn't happen.
They should make a new policy: Don't let people who think that satisfying the complaints of automated tools for the mere purpose of satisfying automated tools is a good idea.
If you don't understand what's going on, don't touch it.
They can let contractors own it - happens all the time as a form of corporate socialism.
No they can't. They can contract with a contractor to develop a piece of code, but the government cannot develop something and then give it to a corporation. If government employees are building it, it's public domain. That's the nature of US law.
They can also release to the public domain and let it be incorporated into the kernel - the GPL is compatible with the public domain.
Your statement is fallacious because the code is automatically public domain. There is nothing to be done to release it into the public domain as it's already there. The legal problem comes from the fact that it is a derivative of a GPLed program. Therefore if they want to distribute it it must be GPLed. However government employees cannot produce anything that is not in the public domain. See the problem? The GPL license requires that they release their changes under the GPL and the law requires that they release under the public domain.
Forget the pain in the ass nature of the kit. Consider the legality of it. The NSA cannot legally own copyright. Anything they produce is in the public domain. Therefore they cannot legally develop code that is under any license.
And yet everyone insists that "their" data not be shared. Data such as search history, purchasing history, credit history, payment history, etc. I mean most of that isn't even yours in the first place, it's collected and collated by someone else. But we insist that we "own" that information and get to control how it's disseminated. How curious.
I'm guessing you didn't actually click the link you are referring to. It doesn't take you to a take down notice, it takes you to a "uh, the notice you are looking for is not here." notice.
They've not laid off 2500 people yet. Just announced plans to lay off 1500-2500. Which I suppose is more or less the same. Guess what? Google is planning layoffs as well. Special eh?
And you want to suggest that people buy four different cars so that when driven they can drive the one that has exactly as many seats as they need? Excellent thinking there.
The ABI wasn't being followed correctly, hence GCC, Linux and the BSD kernels were already broken.
I'm curious, why would you think that the BSD kernels were/are broken? Why would they be following the Sys V ABI? You do know that there are two general flavors of unix right? Sys V and BSD. Guess which one the BSDs are?
And of course they also create "your data" by placing a website with content you are interested in and allowing you to view it. As much as it's your data, it's their data. As much as you get together with your friends and discuss what you see online, they get together with their friends and discuss who sees them online.
You can't interact with anyone or their website without them having at least as much an ownership of the data as you have.
Just being the devil's advocate here.
Besides, they want information about me, so it must be valuable... why should I not profit from restricting who can see or use it?
I think that pretty much summarizes the position of people who believe in copyright (RIAA, MPAA, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
1) You can reference any page unless an admin decides they don't like that page, then poof, it's gone.
2) Unless the people coming to consensus a) have expert training in the area of contention, and b) are performing independent experiments, talking about consensus is just stupid.
You are a sucker. I've purchased two copies of Vista. One retail and one with a new laptop. In the license agreement that came with both of them, there is a clause that allows you to use Windows XP instead of Vista. No need to pay extra.
Re-read the "article." Sounds like the people who interacted with the farmer were told to stay off. And later a truck drove on the property that had visible guns. From what I can glean no one that the trespassers interacted with had a visible gun. Just that they saw a gun in a truck on the property.
The children need to grow up. I wonder how upset they each time the find new evidence that the real world isn't an amusement park there for their entertainment, sanitized and clean and all about hugging them.
Chicago is known for it's political machinations. You may call it "anything but a machine" but the slightest amount of research will expose that almost all politics in Chicago is driven by back room dealing.
But he's not trying to bring people together now. He's trying to get elected and says pretty much anything that he thinks will get him elected. Once in a while he slips up and says things like his categorizing people's beliefs and opinions as being caused by bitterness. Or that they eat too much and consume too many resources. You have to wonder how much he wants people to be involved when he holds such a low opinion of them and, considering his profligate lifestyle, thinks that they are less deserving of having a good life than he is.
I'll be the last person to say that he hasn't worked hard. But I'll be right in line to point out that what he works hard on is furthering his ambitions. If you don't believe that he attempts to leverage class, race and religion for his own gain, then you haven't been paying attention.
Most of the time he gives shallow, uninteresting speeches. They contain the usual rah-rah points and let's all be friends statements. But once in a while stuff just pops out that really makes you wonder. Where do comments about people being bitter come from, if he believes what he is saying about bringing people together? It's in such stark contrast to his normal message that, if he had any actual belief in his message, slips like that would never happen because the ideas just wouldn't be there. It's not a matter of poor word choice, it's the whole idea.
He also is a colleague and friend of William Ayers. Or at least Obama was his friend as long as Ayers could advance Obama's ambition. Then he chose a racist ranter as a mentor until he couldn't advance Obama's ambition, then it's so long Jeremiah.
Look. If you examine Obama's positions and believe they best represent what you want for you, then go ahead and vote for him. But if you're voting for him because he makes you all warm and fuzzy inside, please don't even vote. We need informed voters who have a view beyond happy feelings.
Can you tell me what you think a community organizer is? You seem to think he was out there helping people out and generally being of service to the community. Which is wrong. Look at where he was and who he was working for: the Chicago political machine. His community organizing was all about getting people to show up and vote for the politician of the machine's choice. When he ran for office, his community organizing consisted of getting all his opponents removed from the ballot so that the community had exactly one person to vote for, him.
If you want to talk service, then go ahead and talk service but don't tell the world that pushing class, race and religious division in order to get votes is some kind of community service.
I don't believe that once Obama graduated from law school, that he ever made less than $60,000 a year. And I'm curious as to which twenty years he spent as a "community organizer"? I'm curious because since 1993 he's worked variously as an associate lawyer or held a state or federal senate seat. None of which are going to be paying $30,000 a year. The twenty years before 1993 would have been 1973 - 1993. Given that he was born in 1961, I'm somewhat suspicious that he was community organizing when he was 12 years old.
I'm curious. Let's say ChoicePoint decides they'd like to do more business. So what they decide to do is establish a website called ReportOnConsumers.com. Where anyone can upload a document about anyone. Of course they want to make it possible for people to properly police their information and control who gets access to it, so they provide a nice email where all you have to do is drop them a line proving that you're the person identified in a particular posting and they'll go ahead and remove it. Of course anyone can reupload it immediately. All you have to do to control it is continually review every posted report and submit a proper takedown request.
Still think like the idea of the responsibility being yours?
From the perspective of the programmer who is selling his time, at the end of the day they (almost always) have nothing to give away. So where is the argument for giving away the non-scarce item? If you have something to give away, then you probably haven't been paid for your development time. That's what I mean when I say that Techdirt has a problem with their argument.
Maybe. There are few circumstances where a customer will allow you to keep copyright to the code. Two of them are:
1) It's something that they could buy, but you're selling it to them cheaper. Or
2) It gives them no business advantage over their competitors.
In case 1, you're going to continually fight a battle trying to price your sale lower than the competition. In case 2, you'll find an upper limit on what the customer is willing to pay.
And what's the value of something that doesn't exist? Until someone comes along and creates the work you consider to be available in infinite quantity, it's only available on zero quantity. Given that that is the extreme end of scarcity no amount of money will allow you to buy it. Does that make the act of creation of infinite value?
Maybe you shouldn't try and hang your economic philosophy on old ideas of supply and demand?
I wonder at Techdirt's economic and business background. They make a fundamental error in they're argument that programmers are being paid for their time and not for their code. The problem is that most every programmer who is being paid for their time, doesn't own the code they produce. Those who are contracting aren't being paid for their time, they're being paid for a solution to a problem. The remaining few who are paid for their time but negotiated up front for a free license are so rare that they're basically ignorable.
The fact that they've made such a basic blunder in understanding the actual mechanics of the industry makes me wonder, even in the presence of their semi-sophisticated talk of scarcity, what they actually know about business.
Have you considered the possibility that you're a moron? If you want to go on a rant, you'd better make sure that the topics you bring up have any connection to reality. I mean it took almost five seconds to put "pretty baby amazon.com" into Yahoo and click on the first link in the results. Saying it hardly raised an eyebrow is in complete contrast to all the editorial reviews of the movie that state it was controversial.
Finally there is no single age of consent in America. There are a whole bunch of different rules as the age of consent is determined by the states. According to this chart, in general the US compares pretty much evenly with the majority of the world.
That's like three strikes right there. I guess you're out.
If the information is what it sounds like, it's information about the customer's activity. There'd be a very difficult argument that you own that data instead of the customer owning it. If the customer did zero data entry, no batch loading, EDI, programmatic inserts and updates, or other data loads into the database would there be anything for this guy to provide his customer? Sounds like he's providing a IT support service not a data source.
Unless there was a negotiation up front with specific line items to be delivered (certain types of off-line reports, certain types of web enabled reports, etc.) then just butch up and give them what they want. If you don't you're going to lose your customer. If you're a dick about it, you're going to lose your customer and get bad word of mouth.
Think of it this way: if you believe you should have control of and access to your medical files, credit reports, and bank records; then this customer should have the same with their data. Just make sure they can only see their data.
The "many eyes make bugs shallow" statement shows a lack of understanding of the nature of the problem. Using your corollary of peer review, the purpose isn't to get a lot of eyeballs looking at the article but to get knowledgeable experts to consider the article. The same applies to code. If your reviewers don't understand the code, their eyeballs are worthless.
One area where your comparison falls down is that in peer review there is a certain accountability that the peer review is actually happening. In open source code, you don't know that anyone is actually reviewing the source. Unless you can point at someone who has substantial incentive to do the code review, then it didn't happen.
They should make a new policy: Don't let people who think that satisfying the complaints of automated tools for the mere purpose of satisfying automated tools is a good idea.
If you don't understand what's going on, don't touch it.
Neanderthal is, by definition, not modern man.
No they can't. They can contract with a contractor to develop a piece of code, but the government cannot develop something and then give it to a corporation. If government employees are building it, it's public domain. That's the nature of US law.
Your statement is fallacious because the code is automatically public domain. There is nothing to be done to release it into the public domain as it's already there. The legal problem comes from the fact that it is a derivative of a GPLed program. Therefore if they want to distribute it it must be GPLed. However government employees cannot produce anything that is not in the public domain. See the problem? The GPL license requires that they release their changes under the GPL and the law requires that they release under the public domain.
Forget the pain in the ass nature of the kit. Consider the legality of it. The NSA cannot legally own copyright. Anything they produce is in the public domain. Therefore they cannot legally develop code that is under any license.
And yet everyone insists that "their" data not be shared. Data such as search history, purchasing history, credit history, payment history, etc. I mean most of that isn't even yours in the first place, it's collected and collated by someone else. But we insist that we "own" that information and get to control how it's disseminated. How curious.
I'm guessing you didn't actually click the link you are referring to. It doesn't take you to a take down notice, it takes you to a "uh, the notice you are looking for is not here." notice.
They've not laid off 2500 people yet. Just announced plans to lay off 1500-2500. Which I suppose is more or less the same. Guess what? Google is planning layoffs as well. Special eh?
And you want to suggest that people buy four different cars so that when driven they can drive the one that has exactly as many seats as they need? Excellent thinking there.
I'm curious, why would you think that the BSD kernels were/are broken? Why would they be following the Sys V ABI? You do know that there are two general flavors of unix right? Sys V and BSD. Guess which one the BSDs are?
You can't interact with anyone or their website without them having at least as much an ownership of the data as you have.
Just being the devil's advocate here.
I think that pretty much summarizes the position of people who believe in copyright (RIAA, MPAA, etc.)