How can anybody call him a "denier" when he acknowledged global warming in the first twenty seconds of the cited video?
He is more of a lukewarmist, meaning that he agrees that the climate is changing, is not certain that's a bad thing, and reserves judgment on controlling emissions until there is more data to confirm the models' predictions.
Hi, drinky. Still being an idiot after all these years. Yes, you can find a very small number of instances of "open source", but it wasn't widely used (as it is now), it didn't have an explicit definition (as it does now), and it didn't have a cadre of people dedicated to promoting it (as it does now; points at yours truly).
The fact that you hate Open Source; that you hate the OSI; cannot change the fact that we created Open Source as it is used now.
The housing market is greatly hampered by various levels of government. Look at Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac. Look at building codes. Look at zoning regulations.
In the US, pretty much nobody goes without food unless they have mental problems, in which case their problem is mental, not foodal.
Okay, but note that we're talking about linear infrastructure here. It's a hard problem to solve no matter who's doing it. No matter how you solve it, 1) there will be problems and 2) people hankering to solve it the other way.
And you would be right if it were "deregulation", but it wasn't. It was just "bad reregulation". There was never a customer-regulated market for electricity in California, so nobody can say that it failed!
They're a lot more free than they used to be, and the prices are a lot lower. Do you want to see them even lower yet? Give customers more freedom to regulate.
There is no such thing as deregulation. Markets are regulated by their customers. The only way to get deregulation is to NOT regulate by government, and yet force the customers to buy anyway. And gee, that's exactly what happened in California when it deregulated.
Airplane tickets are fantastically cheap relative to 30 years ago when the deregulation started. You could pay $1,000 to fly coast to coast in 1980 dollars. Now, the last time I flew it was $450 in 2010 dollars.
There are no free markets. There are only markets controlled by governments and markets controlled by customers. The markets controlled by customers work out pretty well for customers. The markets controlled by governments work out pretty well for governments and the politicians that run them and the lobbyists who fund them and the corporations who make money because the politicians control the markets in their favor.
Actually, there *is* such a thing as unlimited Internet. You have a certain bandwidth limit, and you are allowed to suck down data all day long at that rate. Trouble is that's not an efficient use of their network, nor your time. People usually want high speed when they want it, and are willing to put up with total download amounts rather than being speed limited.
So, 5GB == 40Gbits/month = 1.3Gbits/day = 55Mbits/hour = 15Kbps **unlimited** (like, really, completely unlimited, download at 15kbps all day long).
The article you link to is three year old, or should I say three years wrong. Talk to any Verizon reseller or rep, and they'll tell you "no such thing as unlimited, everything has a 5GB cap, and beyond that we charge you $.01KB."
One of these days, some victim of a botnet is going to initiate a class action lawsuit against Microsoft for publishing an insecure operating system, with the injured parties being the people whose machines were induced to participate in a tort.
It's horrible that we're not recognized for our tremendous accomplishments. Anyone who is skeptical of our claims is just completely ignorant of the history of the organization.
Errr, how many times do I need to post this to meet your definition of "frequently"? I wouldn't want you to be wrong in the Internet.
Perhaps this is why OSI is useless and FSF useful despite the oddities of RMS, it's the same "software you can look at but not touch" all over again.
Sorry, stinking load of crap. Even when somebody takes some BSD-licensed code and does nifty magic with it under a proprietary license, the BSD-licensed code they started from remains available to you. So, no "software you can look at but not touch". If someone takes some reciprocal licensed code, and does nifty magic with it, they have to release it with the full rights they had. So, no "software you can look at but not touch".
It's the enemies of freedom, the enemies of openness, that claim that open source code is "code under glass". If it's open source, you can get the source, period. If it's open source, you can modify it, period. If it's open source, you can share it, period. There might be constraints on sharing, like the GPL's requirement that you share source whenever you share binaries, or the QPL's requirement that you distribute modifications as pristine source plus patches.
Please send me the email addresses that contacted OSI "repeatedly... over the years". I will check our email logs and report back here. If you don't step up with you facts, then I will accuse you of dealing it out with a large shovel. Fair enough?
I'm sorry, drinky, but your poo is still stinky. Open Source, per the Open Source Definition, requires redistribution rights. But I admire your creativity with the facts. Say, are you still a member of the Flat Earth Society?
Slashdot Mirror
How can anybody call him a "denier" when he acknowledged global warming in the first twenty seconds of the cited video?
He is more of a lukewarmist, meaning that he agrees that the climate is changing, is not certain that's a bad thing, and reserves judgment on controlling emissions until there is more data to confirm the models' predictions.
My local ISP (slic.com) installed FTTH, and I'm getting 100Mbps to my house, so don't blame me for any drop in speed!
And very few people listened to you and also called it open source. Sucks to be in the dustbin of history, doesn't it?
Oh, you mean the Microsoft who has produced Free Software? You know, software that you can get at zero cost.
The fact is that both Free Software and Open Source are flawed terms. Grow up and deal with it.
Hi, drinky. Still being an idiot after all these years. Yes, you can find a very small number of instances of "open source", but it wasn't widely used (as it is now), it didn't have an explicit definition (as it does now), and it didn't have a cadre of people dedicated to promoting it (as it does now; points at yours truly).
The fact that you hate Open Source; that you hate the OSI; cannot change the fact that we created Open Source as it is used now.
In short, STFU, stupid.
The housing market is greatly hampered by various levels of government. Look at Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac. Look at building codes. Look at zoning regulations.
In the US, pretty much nobody goes without food unless they have mental problems, in which case their problem is mental, not foodal.
Okay, but note that we're talking about linear infrastructure here. It's a hard problem to solve no matter who's doing it. No matter how you solve it, 1) there will be problems and 2) people hankering to solve it the other way.
Two words: Public Choice. Here, let me google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com?q=Public%20Choice
And you would be right if it were "deregulation", but it wasn't. It was just "bad reregulation". There was never a customer-regulated market for electricity in California, so nobody can say that it failed!
They're a lot more free than they used to be, and the prices are a lot lower. Do you want to see them even lower yet? Give customers more freedom to regulate.
But my point -- that corporations are not free to do anything they want in so-called "free" markets -- remains.
ITYM Linear infrastructure, which is hard to regulate whether by governments or customers. There's no magic wand.
There is no such thing as deregulation. Markets are regulated by their customers. The only way to get deregulation is to NOT regulate by government, and yet force the customers to buy anyway. And gee, that's exactly what happened in California when it deregulated.
Airplane tickets are fantastically cheap relative to 30 years ago when the deregulation started. You could pay $1,000 to fly coast to coast in 1980 dollars. Now, the last time I flew it was $450 in 2010 dollars.
There are no free markets. There are only markets controlled by governments and markets controlled by customers. The markets controlled by customers work out pretty well for customers. The markets controlled by governments work out pretty well for governments and the politicians that run them and the lobbyists who fund them and the corporations who make money because the politicians control the markets in their favor.
Oh, no, we're already trespassing on the abyss's property.
and you didn't make them any less nervous. )
Actually, there *is* such a thing as unlimited Internet. You have a certain bandwidth limit, and you are allowed to suck down data all day long at that rate. Trouble is that's not an efficient use of their network, nor your time. People usually want high speed when they want it, and are willing to put up with total download amounts rather than being speed limited.
So, 5GB == 40Gbits/month = 1.3Gbits/day = 55Mbits/hour = 15Kbps **unlimited** (like, really, completely unlimited, download at 15kbps all day long).
The article you link to is three year old, or should I say three years wrong. Talk to any Verizon reseller or rep, and they'll tell you "no such thing as unlimited, everything has a 5GB cap, and beyond that we charge you $.01KB."
One of these days, some victim of a botnet is going to initiate a class action lawsuit against Microsoft for publishing an insecure operating system, with the injured parties being the people whose machines were induced to participate in a tort.
It's horrible that we're not recognized for our tremendous accomplishments. Anyone who is skeptical of our claims is just completely ignorant of the history of the organization.
Errr, how many times do I need to post this to meet your definition of "frequently"? I wouldn't want you to be wrong in the Internet.
Sorry, stinking load of crap. Even when somebody takes some BSD-licensed code and does nifty magic with it under a proprietary license, the BSD-licensed code they started from remains available to you. So, no "software you can look at but not touch". If someone takes some reciprocal licensed code, and does nifty magic with it, they have to release it with the full rights they had. So, no "software you can look at but not touch".
It's the enemies of freedom, the enemies of openness, that claim that open source code is "code under glass". If it's open source, you can get the source, period. If it's open source, you can modify it, period. If it's open source, you can share it, period. There might be constraints on sharing, like the GPL's requirement that you share source whenever you share binaries, or the QPL's requirement that you distribute modifications as pristine source plus patches.
Please send me the email addresses that contacted OSI "repeatedly ... over the years". I will check our email logs and report back here. If you don't step up with you facts, then I will accuse you of dealing it out with a large shovel. Fair enough?
I'm sorry, drinky, but your poo is still stinky. Open Source, per the Open Source Definition, requires redistribution rights. But I admire your creativity with the facts. Say, are you still a member of the Flat Earth Society?
Uhhhhh, dude, I'm still working for a living. I don't know where you bought your facts, but you should ask for your money back. Money back!