"The really irritating thing is why communism would be bad. "To each according to need, from each according to abilities" - how can that ever be a bad thing."
I don't know. Perhaps because it doesn't work too well in practice and because there is still the gun in the background to force the issue?
Besides, with Free software it is more like:
"From each according to his will, to each according to his desires."
I used to phrase that better, at least in my memory, but I can't remember how... (Moral, don't trust my memory too far...)
That is an entirely different proposition now isn't it?
We are only talking copyright here. But, let's throw out patent too. Having patents on software but no copyright would be bad. (AFAICS - as far as I can see.)
A bad player could still use trade secret and contract laws to try and protect their game.
"With no IP laws there would be no comeback for leaking the source to Windows."
Again the "IP" meme. As long as trade secret laws exist, there could still be a comeback for the leak. Right?
"Frankly, strong copyright and enforceable contracts are Free Software's biggest friends. Without those two, Free Software would just be BSD software without any sort of legal control over the copying and distributing of derived works."
Yes, but since anyone could legally copy all the players' programs, where would the big money come from to play the influence game?
As in a lot of life, you win some, you lose some.
However, I am honest enough to explore the thought that strong copyright protection with a copyleft or GPL situation may indeed leave us better off in the long run than if computer software could not be copyrighted at all.
If software was not able to be copyrighted or patented, how would the players try and p[lay the game?
I am sure King George III and his buddies could have thought up some interesting theories along these lines as to why it was proper for the colonists to pay taxes to England even though they couldn't vote.
So, what happened to the principle? To me, it seems to have totally fallen by the wayside.
Places seem to spend a little extra time finding ways to tax those who can't vote because they can't express their displeasure in the next election. Yes? No?
Those talking of voting in your home state are not considering foreigners who still have to pay US taxes.
I know my counrty makes foreigners pay a range of taxes.
I left home at six but this 500 mile commute is a killer.
"If an employee is permitted to perform services/duties from his home or a place other than the within the state where he would normally report for work, and when such person's employer has no business reason[3] to have the employee work outside of the office/facility, such state could attempt to subject the income to tax"
Isn't that one of the points being made though?
These people would not normally report for work in New York. They physically could not. It is not a matter of convenience. They just would not take the job.
What ever happened to the concept of no taxation without representation in the US? Has that concept gone completely by the wayside?
"Simple: Any information which you can use to verify who I am can be used by someone else to verify they are who I am. (In other words, the person they're pretending to be)"
I think perhaps you are answering a different question than I asked or at least intended to ask.
Do you think perhaps it somehow relates to a desire to grease the wheels of commerce?
"The problem is not with the people. The information they give out _should_ be giveoutable. The problem is with the system that allows such simple information like a drivers license number allow someone to take your identity."
Hear! Hear!
And exactly why is taking an identity so easy? That is, why does the system have to run the way it does?
all the best,
drew
Re:No matter how careful you are, you aren't enoug
on
ID Theft Made Easy
·
· Score: 1
"How about the gas station that writes down your license plate information when you purchase gas w/o paying at the pump. It's just for their economic safety they say. Do you know how much information you can get on the owner of a car from their license plate? What happens if I go inside, buy a few items, and pay w/my credit card? They now have my CC # and my personal information. That's enough for ID theft as well. I saw the clerk write down my license plate and I asked them for the paper when I left. They were a little confused as to how I knew they did that and they were VERY confused as to why I would want that back. I didn't feel the need to educate them on it though."
OK, but is the real problem that identities should not be so easy to steal. In other words, that should not be enough for identity theft?
That statement seems absurd to me. So, unless someone can explain it better, I will let my response stand.
"If here is no difference, you might as well argue that citizens can also legitimately own tanks, missiles, etc, for "defense"."
Actually, I often argue that I think the US constitution does allow for just that. Or at least, I can't see why it doesn't. Not that I think that would be a sensible way to go. Just that they should probably amend the constitution to make it proper.
"In most countries I have been to, very few policemen have guns and they are restricted to specialised departments."
In my younger days, ours did not carry. Personally I liked that better. I do accept that things have gone down since then and I have no way of knowing if things would be better today if they did not carry. I don't know about restrictions to specialised departments here.
"Firstly, making guns outright illegal raises the bar dramatically."
Perhaps, I am not so sure. Most here that I talk to figure they come in with the drugs that are mostly passing through. Could be wrong though.
"The more experienced a gun-toting criminal is, the less likely it is anybody will get hurt during a robbery."
If only. One of the latest trends here is they get what they want and as they are walking out the door, they turn and kill someon, apparently at random and for no reason.
"Secondly, it's a hell of a lot easier to identify and convict these "serious" criminals if gun possession is illegal. Possession is easier to prove than practically any other crime."
I think most caught here are in possession of guns with no permit. I think the rate of crimes committed with guns by the owner who has a valid permit is small to non-existant. I could be wrong here too.
So, if you are caught in posession, where is your permit? Why would that not do as well here? From my understand, handgun permits are particularly hard to get and yet the majority of gun crimes seem to be committed with them.
"As far as I can tell, in a country where both guns and drugs are illegal, drugs are far, far more socially acceptable. This means a much bigger black market, and subsequent effects that make it easier to get hold of drugs than guns."
That may be, but like I say, I am pretty much in such a country too and the criminals still seem to have more than enough to cause serious trouble.
I am not calling for easing the restrictions on guns in my country, just pointing out that restricting them, or other things, does not take them off the streets.
"* I assume you are talking about popular recreational drugs such as cocaine; there are plenty of legal drugs in every country."
Correct assumption.
Question, given that guns aare illegal in your country, do the criminals there commit crimes using guns?
"Illegal to own, or carry around the street? I dunno diddly about law in England but here there's a lot of stuff that you can own but not transport, like throwing knives."
Which is why we really need to get to work with renewed energy on transporter technology.
I mean, how are we supposed to get our throwing knives home from the store if we cant transport them.
I take that back, transporter technology will do us no good in this case as transporting them is already illegal and the technology does not even exist yet except in science fiction.
"Weapons designed for killing are not necessary for defense."
I will not say which side of the gun toting side of the debate I am on, but please...
Tell that to the defense departments of every country in the world that has one.
Tell that to every police department.
Se how far you get.
Also,
I am from a country where our rights to gus are much more restricted than the US. For some strange reason, it does not seem to prevent the criminals from having a more than ample supply of weapons. Another strange thing is that many of the weapons are outright illegal in this country if I understand correctly.
So, unless you are in a country where drugs are illegal and cannot be obtained within your borders, don't be to sure that making guns illegal will keep them off the streets.
So, criminals are going to be using them regardless. Now if your concern is for the accidental deaths, perhaps we need to bring automobiles into the debate. (I know they are not for killing as you indicate guns are, but, think of the lives lost.)
Slashdot Mirror
"Tell that to anyone working on a H1B or similar visa. Pay the taxes. No vote."
You do understand that we are making the same point, right?
all the best,
drew
"Of course, money saved from going to Microsoft's pockets will end up going to some politician's bank account, so who am I fooling."
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drmidlife rev&PHPSESSID=4115ff7c0f9d7e520801fd5d772b9e38
If only it were different. Still, the country stands a chance of comming out ahead.
I wish ours would get a bit more of a clue in this area.
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
You could go far with this, if you don't go to jail that is.
Is jail far?
all the best,
drew
(mod the parent up please)
"The really irritating thing is why communism would be bad. "To each according to need, from each according to abilities" - how can that ever be a bad thing."
I don't know. Perhaps because it doesn't work too well in practice and because there is still the gun in the background to force the issue?
Besides, with Free software it is more like:
"From each according to his will, to each according to his desires."
I used to phrase that better, at least in my memory, but I can't remember how... (Moral, don't trust my memory too far...)
That is an entirely different proposition now isn't it?
all the best,
drew
You could be right.
"If there are no IP laws..."
Don't fall into the "IP" trap...
We are only talking copyright here. But, let's throw out patent too. Having patents on software but no copyright would be bad. (AFAICS - as far as I can see.)
A bad player could still use trade secret and contract laws to try and protect their game.
"With no IP laws there would be no comeback for leaking the source to Windows."
Again the "IP" meme. As long as trade secret laws exist, there could still be a comeback for the leak. Right?
all the best,
drew
"Which is fine, as the derivations would also be public domain."
This would probably take a lot of the money out of the game, but it would not solve the source code issue.
all the best,
drew
"Frankly, strong copyright and enforceable contracts are Free Software's biggest friends. Without those two, Free Software would just be BSD software without any sort of legal control over the copying and distributing of derived works."
Yes, but since anyone could legally copy all the players' programs, where would the big money come from to play the influence game?
As in a lot of life, you win some, you lose some.
However, I am honest enough to explore the thought that strong copyright protection with a copyleft or GPL situation may indeed leave us better off in the long run than if computer software could not be copyrighted at all.
If software was not able to be copyrighted or patented, how would the players try and p[lay the game?
all the best,
drew
"There is however reason for taxation without representation."
Of course there is a reason, there usually is. The question should perhaps be, "is it justified?"
Is it ever?
Or was the thought just a good rallying cry for the revolution that was abandoned once the revolutionaries became the government?
all the best,
drew
""I hate Republicans and everything they stand for!" The head of the party of love."
Makes me think of a question I often ask:
Will the tollerant tollerate the intollerant?
And a new one I have recently started asking:
Are the sensitive sensitive to the insensitive?
all the best,
drew
"Sales tax is under a different system than income tax."
R evolution/TeaParty.htm
0 87565
So, the colonists revolted as a result of having to pay income tax? (And only income tax?)
http://www.kidport.com/RefLib/UsaHistory/American
See my post here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=144191&cid=12
all the best,
drew
I am sure King George III and his buddies could have thought up some interesting theories along these lines as to why it was proper for the colonists to pay taxes to England even though they couldn't vote.
So, what happened to the principle? To me, it seems to have totally fallen by the wayside.
Places seem to spend a little extra time finding ways to tax those who can't vote because they can't express their displeasure in the next election. Yes? No?
Those talking of voting in your home state are not considering foreigners who still have to pay US taxes.
I know my counrty makes foreigners pay a range of taxes.
all the best,
drew
I left home at six but this 500 mile commute is a killer.
"If an employee is permitted to perform services/duties from his home or a place other than the within the state where he would normally report for work, and when such person's employer has no business reason[3] to have the employee work outside of the office/facility, such state could attempt to subject the income to tax"
Isn't that one of the points being made though?
These people would not normally report for work in New York. They physically could not. It is not a matter of convenience. They just would not take the job.
What ever happened to the concept of no taxation without representation in the US? Has that concept gone completely by the wayside?
all the best,
drew
I have never studies US civics per se.
I think I heard:
Legislative - make the laws
Executive - carries out the laws
Judicial - interprets the laws
So, why is it reported that the president sends the laws he wants to congress for them to pass? I think I heard that phrase used recently.
Is this how things have always run since your founding? Are things not run this way now and I just mis-heard of the person mis-spoke?
all the best,
drew
So, do you get to vote in both states?
No taxation without representation and all that jazz...
all the best,
drew
Sign up now for "How to kill your product 101"
the latest course on college campuses worldwide...
all the best,
drew
I may have been thick when I made this reply.
Oh well...
all the best,
drew
"Simple: Any information which you can use to verify who I am can be used by someone else to verify they are who I am. (In other words, the person they're pretending to be)"
I think perhaps you are answering a different question than I asked or at least intended to ask.
Do you think perhaps it somehow relates to a desire to grease the wheels of commerce?
all the best,
drew
"The problem is not with the people. The information they give out _should_ be giveoutable. The problem is with the system that allows such simple information like a drivers license number allow someone to take your identity."
Hear! Hear!
And exactly why is taking an identity so easy? That is, why does the system have to run the way it does?
all the best,
drew
"How about the gas station that writes down your license plate information when you purchase gas w/o paying at the pump. It's just for their economic safety they say. Do you know how much information you can get on the owner of a car from their license plate? What happens if I go inside, buy a few items, and pay w/my credit card? They now have my CC # and my personal information. That's enough for ID theft as well. I saw the clerk write down my license plate and I asked them for the paper when I left. They were a little confused as to how I knew they did that and they were VERY confused as to why I would want that back. I didn't feel the need to educate them on it though."
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
OK, but is the real problem that identities should not be so easy to steal. In other words, that should not be enough for identity theft?
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
"Weapons designed for killing are not necessary for defense."
o ld=0&commentsort=0&tid=98&mode=thread&cid=12060413
---
" Tell that to the defense departments of every country in the world that has one.
There is a world of difference between a trained soldier defending against an invasion of armed individuals and a citizen defending himself. "
You quoted me out of context, I was responding to a post saying that weapons designed for killing are not necessary for defense.
See this post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=143914&thresh
That statement seems absurd to me. So, unless someone can explain it better, I will let my response stand.
"If here is no difference, you might as well argue that citizens can also legitimately own tanks, missiles, etc, for "defense"."
Actually, I often argue that I think the US constitution does allow for just that. Or at least, I can't see why it doesn't. Not that I think that would be a sensible way to go. Just that they should probably amend the constitution to make it proper.
"In most countries I have been to, very few policemen have guns and they are restricted to specialised departments."
In my younger days, ours did not carry. Personally I liked that better. I do accept that things have gone down since then and I have no way of knowing if things would be better today if they did not carry. I don't know about restrictions to specialised departments here.
"Firstly, making guns outright illegal raises the bar dramatically."
Perhaps, I am not so sure. Most here that I talk to figure they come in with the drugs that are mostly passing through. Could be wrong though.
"The more experienced a gun-toting criminal is, the less likely it is anybody will get hurt during a robbery."
If only. One of the latest trends here is they get what they want and as they are walking out the door, they turn and kill someon, apparently at random and for no reason.
"Secondly, it's a hell of a lot easier to identify and convict these "serious" criminals if gun possession is illegal. Possession is easier to prove than practically any other crime."
I think most caught here are in possession of guns with no permit. I think the rate of crimes committed with guns by the owner who has a valid permit is small to non-existant. I could be wrong here too.
So, if you are caught in posession, where is your permit? Why would that not do as well here? From my understand, handgun permits are particularly hard to get and yet the majority of gun crimes seem to be committed with them.
"As far as I can tell, in a country where both guns and drugs are illegal, drugs are far, far more socially acceptable. This means a much bigger black market, and subsequent effects that make it easier to get hold of drugs than guns."
That may be, but like I say, I am pretty much in such a country too and the criminals still seem to have more than enough to cause serious trouble.
I am not calling for easing the restrictions on guns in my country, just pointing out that restricting them, or other things, does not take them off the streets.
"* I assume you are talking about popular recreational drugs such as cocaine; there are plenty of legal drugs in every country."
Correct assumption.
Question, given that guns aare illegal in your country, do the criminals there commit crimes using guns?
all the best,
drew
I know the parent post to mine was offtopic, but it was funny. (Did you not get the joke?)
My post was offtopic to the article, but not in a smaller context.
So, what was your thinking? Or were you simply trying to spend your mod points quickly and picked a safe one?
all the best,
drew
"Illegal to own, or carry around the street? I dunno diddly about law in England but here there's a lot of stuff that you can own but not transport, like throwing knives."
Which is why we really need to get to work with renewed energy on transporter technology.
I mean, how are we supposed to get our throwing knives home from the store if we cant transport them.
I take that back, transporter technology will do us no good in this case as transporting them is already illegal and the technology does not even exist yet except in science fiction.
Talk about forward thinking lawmakers...
all the best,
drew
"Weapons designed for killing are not necessary for defense."
I will not say which side of the gun toting side of the debate I am on, but please...
Tell that to the defense departments of every country in the world that has one.
Tell that to every police department.
Se how far you get.
Also,
I am from a country where our rights to gus are much more restricted than the US. For some strange reason, it does not seem to prevent the criminals from having a more than ample supply of weapons. Another strange thing is that many of the weapons are outright illegal in this country if I understand correctly.
So, unless you are in a country where drugs are illegal and cannot be obtained within your borders, don't be to sure that making guns illegal will keep them off the streets.
So, criminals are going to be using them regardless. Now if your concern is for the accidental deaths, perhaps we need to bring automobiles into the debate. (I know they are not for killing as you indicate guns are, but, think of the lives lost.)
all the best,
drew
"Cuban libre?"
That's funny! Stupid, but funny and I mean no disrespect, I like my funny like this a lot of the time.
Mod parent up please.
all the best,
drew
"You apparently forgot about Kolchak, The Night Stalker. That was quirky and interesting and didn't last very long."
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
Yes, Kolchak slipped my mind. I do remember enjoying at least some of those though.
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3