I've probably read it more than you have. The Bible is self contradictory is many places. I won't dig them up now because you've read it, and know them, and ignore them. They aren't hard to find. The Bible says God is impotent against an army with iron chariots. If a man has sex with a menstruating woman they both must be banished. And you must believe that is all of the bible is true. Jesus himself says you must continue to obediently follow the law. But Jesus and Paul get into a lot of fights about such things.
By your argument that makes it just another man made book. Which is the only thing one can believe if you think it must be infallible. Most Christian sects do not hold that the Bible is infallible. Yet they still believe. Most Christian sects do not preach that the creation story is true. Most preach guided evolution.
If you're an American conservative Christian, most of what is preached in your church as dogma (Creationism, the Rapture, Christian Capitalism) didn't exist 150 years ago. They were invented by men. Recently. Why is it so hard to believe that to book was written by men as well. A lot of those contradictory chapters have an man's name on them.
Uninformed criticism of both science and Christianity is annoying.
I agree. But by an large criticism of evolution as a science is uninformed. On the other hand most of the critics of Christianity that I'm am familiar with are more familiar with the tenets of Christianity and the text of the Christian Bible(s) than the supporters of Christianity are. They are usually more aware of where we get specific dogma (such as literal interpretation of the creation myths, where the YEC estimate for the age of the earth comes from, how old the concept of the Rapture is.) Most conservative Christians would be astonished at and disturbed by this knowledge.
In fact it is often deep understanding the history and writings of the Christian religion that initially leads people to the conclusion that it's not the least bit consistent or believable.
Thanks for playing with yourself, asshole. A link to the original article doesn't tell me a thing about what was copied. I guess logic isn't your strong suit.
I was doing astronomical image analysis on photographic negatives in 1985. Images were scanned using a (monochrome) photodensitometer attached to a PDP 11 and manipulated on a VAX 11-750 with a Grinnell display (512x512x8, IIRC). Nothing would have prevented you from doing most basic Photoshop type manipulations, and developing your own routines to do image manipulation was far easier than doing so for Photoshop is right now.
By 1987, megapixel 8-bit displays would have been common in astronomy. By 1988, the undergraduate lab in Berkeley had a IBM PGA attached to an RT-PC. The grad students were using MicroVAX consoles (mostly grayscale). Shortly thereafter the switch to Sun boxes began.
I'm sure national intelligence photo analysis and modification was far ahead of Astronomy the whole time.
Under U.S. law a recipe is can only be protected by copyright if it contains significant literary or artistic expression. Even then, if it can be reduced to a list of ingredients and a list of simple steps, that list of ingredients and list of steps can be copied because they do not include the literary or artistic portions. For example, suppose you have a recipe for a Bourbon Manhattan...
3 oz Bourbon
1 oz Sweet Vermouth
1/2 tsp Maraschino Cherry Syrup
Dash Angostura Bitters
1. Pour ingredients into cocktail shaker full of ice.
2. Cover and shake 5 times
3. Strain into martini glass.
There's nothing there to copyright. Anyone can take it and reproduce it. If I include several paragraphs of how to choose Bourbon, then it is subject to copyright. But that copyright covers the artistic content, not the ingredient list or steps to follow. The ingredient list and the steps are yours to take and to put into your own bartenders guide. All you need to do is strip out the copyrightable content and you're in the clear.
Of course in this case I don't see a link to the offending recipe, so there's no way for me to know whether it is subject to copyright or not.
Is that even legal? Remember this cease-and-desist [slashdot.org] from a year ago?
Beats me. Downloading it isn't going to get you into trouble. Distributing it might. If you feel guilty, once you have the Market app installed you can upgrade to the official Market app.
The whole non-phone vs phone thing shouldn't cause problems other than apps that require the ability to dial (very few) or listen on the microphone won't work. GPS apps won't work. But things that just work on the network and output audio or video, like Pandora Radio or Flash, should work.
Yeah, and the military doesn't express my opinions either and I have to pay for it. I don't like my tax dollars funding churches in violation of the constitution but it happens anyway. And I certainly don't want to be paying for the salaries and health benefits for the bunch of ignorant jerkwads that just got elected. All those things cost me a hell of a lot more than the government funded 10% of NPR costs you, so go cry to someone who cares.
Gee, if Diane Rheem is do liberal, its a wonder her show doesn't play in the San Francisco bay area.
And enough with the George Soros crap already. So liberals have one billionaire willing to spend his money on elections. Unlike the ones on the right, he spends his money openly, rather than inventing a shill non-profit to take undisclosed donations.
I call bullshit. In 1776 inflation rate was about 20%. In 1777 it was 25%. In 1778 it was 30%. During the war of 1812 it hit 20%.
In between were periods of deflation in there that hit 20% They may have added up to 14% (it's hard to tell from the document I'm looking at), but there was a hell of a lot of inflation and deflation in those periods and a whole lot of pain because of it. Deflation cripples the economy. Technically telling the true what propagating a false story (the gold standard prevents inflation) is still lying.
The economy was largely stagnant during much of that time and there were repeated depressions that got successively worse until the great depression. Gold isn't money, it's a commodity and its value will fluctuate like any commodity even if you hold large quantities in reserve. That destabilizes the money supply and during those years you got periods of inflation and deflation. If you look at the actual annual inflation/deflation rate (page 6 of this) you will see that prices have been far more stable since we've gone off the gold standard and into an actively managed economy. You'll also see that GDP growth has taken off much more than the total inflation has.
The only way you get a stable value for gold is if you only compare it to gold. Compared to other things its value isn't even close to stable.
According to what you hear from countless economists, we narrowly avoided another great depression, and the last one took a decade to recover from.
The worse problem is that we haven't avoided it. We've just postponed it. To quote Battlestar Galactica, all this has happened before. Things will still be bad enough in two years that in the next presidential election we'll elect a Hoover who will slash spending, eliminate the Fed or subject it to political control and bring on the real depression. From the rubble of that collapse will arise someone with both the ability and the desire to lead, and who can attract the support of the people. That person could be Hitler, or they could be FDR. I know which one I would prefer. I know which one Glen Beck would prefer. But we won't really get a choice in the matter.
Again you show yourself to be a prick who can't comprehend written English. Why the hell does it matter if Rheem is a liberal? She's not in the news business. And I'm pretty sure that study wasn't CPB funded. It was another conservative attack study where everyone who was a reasonable human being was deemed liberal and everyone who believed in the infallibility of the Christian sky spirits and believed thermometers are a communist plot was considered conservative.
Shepherd Smith is guy who slammed his hand down on the table and screamed, "We don't F*kkin' torture!!!" when discussing Gitmo.
A conservative can't be against torture? I think you're wearing the blinders you accuse me of wearing. I think you're also incapable of parsing the English language, since you brought up Diane Rheem, who isn't a news reporter, analyst, or commentator. I think you're judging Juan Williams by the color of his skin and his prior employer rather than based upon opinions he holds.
I know that (and I assume every one else does as well). You can sell the program, but you have to give the complete source away to anyone who asks for it for no more than the cost of reproduction or ship the source with the binary, at which point it will be available to anyone soon enough. Since currently reproduction has zero cost, that's really the equivalent of not being able to sell the source.
But anyway, the GPP doesn't want to release source, so I assumed it was obvious that I meant that selling in this case did not include source distribution.
Juan Williams and Mara Liasson are considered to be liberals on Fox because they worked for NPR. Both of them are conservatives. They were hired as conservative analysts by NPR because conservatives were complaining about lack of balance. Every Mara Liasson story is "this is how this event is good for the Republican party." She always refers to Republican presidents as "the President" or "President Bush" and disrespectfully refers to Democratic presidents as "Bill Clinton" and "Barak Obama" I have no idea who Shepherd Smith is, but by the Fox definition of liberal I expect he's a pseudo-libertarian who is somewhere to the right of George W. Bush.
I have trouble coming up with the name of an NPR News commentator or reporter that comes off as liberal. Cokie Roberts certainly isn't a liberal. Everyone else keeps their mouth shut when it comes to political opinions.
Steve Inskeep? Has he ever said anything political? Nina Totenberg once said Jesse Helms said something stupid. So did a lot of conservative columnists at the time. I don't give a damn about the non-news programming on NPR, because that's not being passed off as news. That's diametrically opposed to Fox News where anchors and reporters are encouraged to express political opinions and right wing myths as if they were fact. Why would a conservative want an NPR show anyway when they could make better money syndicating on right wing AM radio?
Another way to look at it is 'opportunity cost'. What if we'd thrown the $100B into wind technology research? Solar Cells*? Cellulostic Ethanol? Battery tech? Cancer prevention? A replacement for the shuttle? Thorium nuclear power?
Some government research dollars need to go toward things that don't have an immediate economic payback. Even a corporation watching the quarterly statements would have a reason to put money into researching those things. And in case you haven't checked both DOE and NIH have larger budgets than NASA. I'd be surprised if we hadn't thrown $100B into cancer prevention alone in that time period.
How about 100 billion that could still be in the pocketbooks of millions?
It's not like that money disappeared. A lot of that went into the paychecks of American citizens who invested it or used it to buy things. Some of those paychecks went into paying income and payroll taxes. Some of it went to the shareholders of the corporations that did the work. In other words, a lot of it is in the pocketbooks of millions.
Oh, and never use NPR as a source. Anything funded by George Soros or politicians is not a valid source.
NPR is about as unbiased a source as you can get, despite your George Soros paranoia. Ooh scary, the "left" has one moderate billionaire. Good thing the far right has the rest of them to keep everything on Fox News fair and balanced.
Either way, regardless of whether he (the GP) benefits or not, he still has the right to complain about being forced to invest in this. Especially if he's quite poor.
Yes, and the way you complain is to vote. And if he's quite poor, he didn't pay any income taxes anyway (like about 50% of taxpayers last year). Maybe he wants to. Voting for Republicans will get those poor people into the club of paying taxpayers and all lot of rich people out of the club.
There is a third choice, letting the people keep the money they earn.
If you want to be over simplistic, sure. Nothing in economics is simple.
You are aware that tax cuts exert a downward pressure on wages. Supposed your boss hired you at $70k/yr gross and you paid $20k/yr in taxes. Now you get a $5000 per year tax cut, so you're now taking home $55k rather than $50k. But, of course, your boss knows you would do the job for $50k take home. We'll assume your boss is a nice guy, so he's not going to cut your pay immediately. But he is going to hire the new guy at about $65k/year gross. And when it comes time to tighten the company belt, well you're 7% more expensive than the new guy who's just as good as you, so you get to collect unemployment. (Damn socialism.)
To a significant extent the benefits of income tax cuts accrue to the employer rather than the employee. Every personal income tax cut is a cut in labor costs to large corporations. That's why Republicans like them.
Oh.... You thought they were trying to help you? Unless you're bankrolling campaign ads, I don't think they much care about your take home pay.
Is there something wrong with trying to make a profit? Shouldn't the free market decide if the value I add to a product is worth paying for?
Except when they pay for the whole product, they are paying for the whole product not your minor revision. If you're going to pass 99% of the sales price on to the original author, fine. What really annoys you about the GPL is that you can't legally earn a living selling work that other people did. Not that a lot of people don't do it illegally anyway. I think forced sterilization would be an appropriate punishment.
Slashdot Mirror
I've probably read it more than you have. The Bible is self contradictory is many places. I won't dig them up now because you've read it, and know them, and ignore them. They aren't hard to find. The Bible says God is impotent against an army with iron chariots. If a man has sex with a menstruating woman they both must be banished. And you must believe that is all of the bible is true. Jesus himself says you must continue to obediently follow the law. But Jesus and Paul get into a lot of fights about such things.
By your argument that makes it just another man made book. Which is the only thing one can believe if you think it must be infallible. Most Christian sects do not hold that the Bible is infallible. Yet they still believe. Most Christian sects do not preach that the creation story is true. Most preach guided evolution.
If you're an American conservative Christian, most of what is preached in your church as dogma (Creationism, the Rapture, Christian Capitalism) didn't exist 150 years ago. They were invented by men. Recently. Why is it so hard to believe that to book was written by men as well. A lot of those contradictory chapters have an man's name on them.
Uninformed criticism of both science and Christianity is annoying.
I agree. But by an large criticism of evolution as a science is uninformed. On the other hand most of the critics of Christianity that I'm am familiar with are more familiar with the tenets of Christianity and the text of the Christian Bible(s) than the supporters of Christianity are. They are usually more aware of where we get specific dogma (such as literal interpretation of the creation myths, where the YEC estimate for the age of the earth comes from, how old the concept of the Rapture is.) Most conservative Christians would be astonished at and disturbed by this knowledge.
In fact it is often deep understanding the history and writings of the Christian religion that initially leads people to the conclusion that it's not the least bit consistent or believable.
You're making it wrong.
Thanks for playing with yourself, asshole. A link to the original article doesn't tell me a thing about what was copied. I guess logic isn't your strong suit.
I was doing astronomical image analysis on photographic negatives in 1985. Images were scanned using a (monochrome) photodensitometer attached to a PDP 11 and manipulated on a VAX 11-750 with a Grinnell display (512x512x8, IIRC). Nothing would have prevented you from doing most basic Photoshop type manipulations, and developing your own routines to do image manipulation was far easier than doing so for Photoshop is right now.
By 1987, megapixel 8-bit displays would have been common in astronomy. By 1988, the undergraduate lab in Berkeley had a IBM PGA attached to an RT-PC. The grad students were using MicroVAX consoles (mostly grayscale). Shortly thereafter the switch to Sun boxes began.
I'm sure national intelligence photo analysis and modification was far ahead of Astronomy the whole time.
U.S. Copyright Office - Recipes
Under U.S. law a recipe is can only be protected by copyright if it contains significant literary or artistic expression. Even then, if it can be reduced to a list of ingredients and a list of simple steps, that list of ingredients and list of steps can be copied because they do not include the literary or artistic portions. For example, suppose you have a recipe for a Bourbon Manhattan...
1. Pour ingredients into cocktail shaker full of ice.
2. Cover and shake 5 times
3. Strain into martini glass.
There's nothing there to copyright. Anyone can take it and reproduce it. If I include several paragraphs of how to choose Bourbon, then it is subject to copyright. But that copyright covers the artistic content, not the ingredient list or steps to follow. The ingredient list and the steps are yours to take and to put into your own bartenders guide. All you need to do is strip out the copyrightable content and you're in the clear.
Of course in this case I don't see a link to the offending recipe, so there's no way for me to know whether it is subject to copyright or not.
Is that even legal? Remember this cease-and-desist [slashdot.org] from a year ago?
Beats me. Downloading it isn't going to get you into trouble. Distributing it might. If you feel guilty, once you have the Market app installed you can upgrade to the official Market app.
The whole non-phone vs phone thing shouldn't cause problems other than apps that require the ability to dial (very few) or listen on the microphone won't work. GPS apps won't work. But things that just work on the network and output audio or video, like Pandora Radio or Flash, should work.
Yeah, and the military doesn't express my opinions either and I have to pay for it. I don't like my tax dollars funding churches in violation of the constitution but it happens anyway. And I certainly don't want to be paying for the salaries and health benefits for the bunch of ignorant jerkwads that just got elected. All those things cost me a hell of a lot more than the government funded 10% of NPR costs you, so go cry to someone who cares.
Gee, if Diane Rheem is do liberal, its a wonder her show doesn't play in the San Francisco bay area.
And enough with the George Soros crap already. So liberals have one billionaire willing to spend his money on elections. Unlike the ones on the right, he spends his money openly, rather than inventing a shill non-profit to take undisclosed donations.
I call bullshit. In 1776 inflation rate was about 20%. In 1777 it was 25%. In 1778 it was 30%. During the war of 1812 it hit 20%. In between were periods of deflation in there that hit 20% They may have added up to 14% (it's hard to tell from the document I'm looking at), but there was a hell of a lot of inflation and deflation in those periods and a whole lot of pain because of it. Deflation cripples the economy. Technically telling the true what propagating a false story (the gold standard prevents inflation) is still lying.
The economy was largely stagnant during much of that time and there were repeated depressions that got successively worse until the great depression. Gold isn't money, it's a commodity and its value will fluctuate like any commodity even if you hold large quantities in reserve. That destabilizes the money supply and during those years you got periods of inflation and deflation. If you look at the actual annual inflation/deflation rate (page 6 of this) you will see that prices have been far more stable since we've gone off the gold standard and into an actively managed economy. You'll also see that GDP growth has taken off much more than the total inflation has.
The only way you get a stable value for gold is if you only compare it to gold. Compared to other things its value isn't even close to stable.
According to what you hear from countless economists, we narrowly avoided another great depression, and the last one took a decade to recover from.
The worse problem is that we haven't avoided it. We've just postponed it. To quote Battlestar Galactica, all this has happened before. Things will still be bad enough in two years that in the next presidential election we'll elect a Hoover who will slash spending, eliminate the Fed or subject it to political control and bring on the real depression. From the rubble of that collapse will arise someone with both the ability and the desire to lead, and who can attract the support of the people. That person could be Hitler, or they could be FDR. I know which one I would prefer. I know which one Glen Beck would prefer. But we won't really get a choice in the matter.
Again you show yourself to be a prick who can't comprehend written English. Why the hell does it matter if Rheem is a liberal? She's not in the news business. And I'm pretty sure that study wasn't CPB funded. It was another conservative attack study where everyone who was a reasonable human being was deemed liberal and everyone who believed in the infallibility of the Christian sky spirits and believed thermometers are a communist plot was considered conservative.
Shepherd Smith is guy who slammed his hand down on the table and screamed, "We don't F*kkin' torture!!!" when discussing Gitmo.
A conservative can't be against torture? I think you're wearing the blinders you accuse me of wearing. I think you're also incapable of parsing the English language, since you brought up Diane Rheem, who isn't a news reporter, analyst, or commentator. I think you're judging Juan Williams by the color of his skin and his prior employer rather than based upon opinions he holds.
I know that (and I assume every one else does as well). You can sell the program, but you have to give the complete source away to anyone who asks for it for no more than the cost of reproduction or ship the source with the binary, at which point it will be available to anyone soon enough. Since currently reproduction has zero cost, that's really the equivalent of not being able to sell the source.
But anyway, the GPP doesn't want to release source, so I assumed it was obvious that I meant that selling in this case did not include source distribution.
Juan Williams and Mara Liasson are considered to be liberals on Fox because they worked for NPR. Both of them are conservatives. They were hired as conservative analysts by NPR because conservatives were complaining about lack of balance. Every Mara Liasson story is "this is how this event is good for the Republican party." She always refers to Republican presidents as "the President" or "President Bush" and disrespectfully refers to Democratic presidents as "Bill Clinton" and "Barak Obama" I have no idea who Shepherd Smith is, but by the Fox definition of liberal I expect he's a pseudo-libertarian who is somewhere to the right of George W. Bush.
I have trouble coming up with the name of an NPR News commentator or reporter that comes off as liberal. Cokie Roberts certainly isn't a liberal. Everyone else keeps their mouth shut when it comes to political opinions. Steve Inskeep? Has he ever said anything political? Nina Totenberg once said Jesse Helms said something stupid. So did a lot of conservative columnists at the time. I don't give a damn about the non-news programming on NPR, because that's not being passed off as news. That's diametrically opposed to Fox News where anchors and reporters are encouraged to express political opinions and right wing myths as if they were fact. Why would a conservative want an NPR show anyway when they could make better money syndicating on right wing AM radio?
Another way to look at it is 'opportunity cost'. What if we'd thrown the $100B into wind technology research? Solar Cells*? Cellulostic Ethanol? Battery tech? Cancer prevention? A replacement for the shuttle? Thorium nuclear power?
Some government research dollars need to go toward things that don't have an immediate economic payback. Even a corporation watching the quarterly statements would have a reason to put money into researching those things. And in case you haven't checked both DOE and NIH have larger budgets than NASA. I'd be surprised if we hadn't thrown $100B into cancer prevention alone in that time period.
How about 100 billion that could still be in the pocketbooks of millions?
It's not like that money disappeared. A lot of that went into the paychecks of American citizens who invested it or used it to buy things. Some of those paychecks went into paying income and payroll taxes. Some of it went to the shareholders of the corporations that did the work. In other words, a lot of it is in the pocketbooks of millions.
Oh, and never use NPR as a source. Anything funded by George Soros or politicians is not a valid source.
NPR is about as unbiased a source as you can get, despite your George Soros paranoia. Ooh scary, the "left" has one moderate billionaire. Good thing the far right has the rest of them to keep everything on Fox News fair and balanced.
Either way, regardless of whether he (the GP) benefits or not, he still has the right to complain about being forced to invest in this. Especially if he's quite poor.
Yes, and the way you complain is to vote. And if he's quite poor, he didn't pay any income taxes anyway (like about 50% of taxpayers last year). Maybe he wants to. Voting for Republicans will get those poor people into the club of paying taxpayers and all lot of rich people out of the club.
There is a third choice, letting the people keep the money they earn.
If you want to be over simplistic, sure. Nothing in economics is simple.
You are aware that tax cuts exert a downward pressure on wages. Supposed your boss hired you at $70k/yr gross and you paid $20k/yr in taxes. Now you get a $5000 per year tax cut, so you're now taking home $55k rather than $50k. But, of course, your boss knows you would do the job for $50k take home. We'll assume your boss is a nice guy, so he's not going to cut your pay immediately. But he is going to hire the new guy at about $65k/year gross. And when it comes time to tighten the company belt, well you're 7% more expensive than the new guy who's just as good as you, so you get to collect unemployment. (Damn socialism.)
To a significant extent the benefits of income tax cuts accrue to the employer rather than the employee. Every personal income tax cut is a cut in labor costs to large corporations. That's why Republicans like them.
Oh.... You thought they were trying to help you? Unless you're bankrolling campaign ads, I don't think they much care about your take home pay.
$100 billion for space-based research or $100 billion for Welfare and War.
Not really a touch decision.
Exactly. I think everyone should go here to play "find NASA".
Is there something wrong with trying to make a profit? Shouldn't the free market decide if the value I add to a product is worth paying for?
Except when they pay for the whole product, they are paying for the whole product not your minor revision. If you're going to pass 99% of the sales price on to the original author, fine. What really annoys you about the GPL is that you can't legally earn a living selling work that other people did. Not that a lot of people don't do it illegally anyway. I think forced sterilization would be an appropriate punishment.
At least someone understands the motivations of anti-GPL trolls.
GPL doesn't let me do either without giving away how I did it by releasing the source code.
Are you really bitching that GPL doesn't allow you to steal the work of others and sell it as your own?
But given the Steve's need to control what people do, it's hard to believe that it won't be the only way to get applications for OS X Ocelot.