What about the author. The people who hold the actual copyright released it under the GPL because that was the most attractive license to them. If they wanted to release it under BSD or public domain they would have done so.
I think a court would have to give that quite a bit of weight. It seems to me that the intention of the copyright holders are the most important thing.
Mmm interesting. You just randomly picked me out of the masses and started stalking me. Not only that but you measure your worth by how many friends you have slashdot. Oh and you threaten to write about me in your journal as if that was going to actually harm me or something.
I find your psycology facinating. For a long time I thought the idea of lonely boys hanging out at slashdot and trying to give meaning to their lives by accumulating karma or friends was kind of kooky but I guess they are true.
" I'm replying to see how long you continue to reply,"
Well the facts are clear on this. You replied to me. Why? I don't know. You keep stalking me. Why? I don't know. You are clearly obsessed with me. So much that you are going to put a whole writeup on me on your journal.
Why would a sane person do all this? Especially if as you say you have a hot grilfriend and a lexus? Isn't it more fun to fuck your girlfriend and drive your lexus? Apparently either you don't have those things or you find it more fun to stalk me and write about me in your journal.
Really, you need to get over your obsession with me. It's not healthy.
You find nothing of interest in my posts and yet you feel compelled to reply to them. This is very typical obsessive compulsive stalker behavior. The inability to stop yourself from doing things you are ashamed of. If you knew where I lived you'd find yourself driving by my house a lot or simply parking close by at night hoping to get a glimpse of me. Of course if you knew where I lived I'd get a restraining order.
With a couple of degree it ought to be pretty easy to immigrate to another country. Maybe that's worth looking into. For example if you got citizenship in any EU country you can live and work throughout EU.
"In Afghanistan, I think the threat to us was fairly clear. Al-Queada, with the full approval of the Taliban, carried out 9/11. And they were probably using Afghan shelters to plan further attacks."
The taliban is a weird study. The taliban gained supremacy through airpower. They had somehow (quite possibly through russia or pakistan) gotten a hold of a MIG or two and used them to pound the opposition. I remember when Kabul fell the fight was so one sided. They kept marching north and were finally held off for a little while around mazari-sharif. If you recall it was around this time that Dostun fled the country. Before then the so called northern alliance was begging the US for help. They were asking for stingers or for the US military to take out the MIGS. They kept saying that they could take the taliban if only the MIGs were destroyed. The US turned a blind eye because at the time it was believed that stability in Afghanistan could only be achieved if a strong force could grip the country. Of course the stability of afghanistan is very important to build a pipeline into the arabian sea or the black sea (through turkey). There are several state dept documents stating this desire.
In the end we found out too late that we should have helped out earlier. Now of course afghanistan is pretty much back to the pre-taliban chaos and karzai is the president of kabul.
Iraq was no threat to anybody let alone the US. The reasons for attacking them had nothing to do with them being a threat to us. If it was Bush would be saying so right now. Instead he is talking about the mass graves his father made possible.
But you are a stalker. You are stalking me while pretending that you own a lexus and a hot chick (which face it is a pretty universal high school fantasy scenario).
if you have been around that long then your chances of getting hired doing meaningful work is slim. Good luck to you, I hope you don't end up as a greeter at walmart.
I don't think Bush would kill US citizens to win elections. He would start a war with iran or sryia if he thought he was going to lose the election though.
I don't think anybody argues that the taliban or saddam were not bad people. They clearly were. The problem is that nobody believes that they were routed because they were bad people. For example during the Reagan administration Saddam gassed the kurds and the iraqis. I am sure you have seen footage of the dead bodies littering the street. At that time human rights organizations cried foul, implored the US to do something, they begged the UN to do something. UN actually drafted a resolution condeming the chemical warfare. Do you know what happened to that resolution? The US vetoed it.
Saddam has been cruel and murderous for years and yet he was on the US dole, getting US help, getting US money, getting US intelligence. Why did Bush Jr all of a sudden decide to attack him? It wasn't because he was a bad man if it was he would have said so. He would have stood up in the UN and said "this guy is a sleazy murderer and we should get rid of him because of it". Why didn't he do that? I find that really curious don't you?
I would also like to point out that people are suffering horribly all over the world. Liberia comes to mind and so does palestine. Where is the mighty US army charging in to save the day? Why is Iraq and afghanistan so special?
I ask the last question rhetorically of course. We all know the importance of a stable afghanistan for piping caspian oil and of course all the iraqi oil wells are now under the firm control of the US army. In fact recently there was a law passed in Iraq that every industry in iraq had to allow foreign comapnies to compete for contracts. every industry except oil which was specifically exempted.
As for Dean. You probably argee with him on lots of issues. He is pro gun, fiscally conservative, for a smaller govt etc. During the recent debates he berated his fellow democrats for wanting to spend like crazy. I doubt you'll vote for him though. I find that most republicans would never vote for a democrat no matter who was running.
" You are just repeating yourself, without any merit or cause. In fact, it's almost as if that's what you want to happen."
Sorry. I must have said the same thing while you were stalking me anonymously. Sometimes it's hard to tell which stalker is which.
"I just like to make fun of dicks like you, and see how many times you will respond without saying anything that even comes close to showing you have any intelligence at all."
As I said I enjoy providing targets for obsessive compulsives like you. I figure that if you are too busy stalking me on slashdot then at least you are not out destroying your parent's car or setting off fireworks in the trailer park. Anything that keeps kids like you off the street is a valuable service to society I think.
As I said grease up your little pud and enjoy yourself. I am happy to provide a target for your sexual frustrations. Maybe I am not as much fun as real girl but I am less scary and will not laugh at you when you take your clothes off.
I do like posting here. If for no other reason then it attracts stalkers like you. I have lots of them. Some of them sexually stimulate themselves while reading my posts and replying to them. Feel free to butter yourself up and enjoy yourself.
"First off, economy can drastically shift the availability and distribution of resources. If lots of people need milk, then things can shift so that more people are producing milk."
Mmmm interesting. So you are saying that there is an infinate capacity for creating milk. That dedicating more resouces to creating milk will not deprive other resources too.
"Secondly, technology can dramatically increase the resources available. Increased mining efficiency, mineral scans, biotech crops, fertilizers, better farming practices, etc. can all increase the resources available, often with a direct increase in capital."
Technology can make better and more efficient use of resources but it can't make more of them. You can't make more metals or water.
"Thirdly, even if all the resources available were a fixed input, the economy would still be a positive sum game. When I trade you a back-hoe for a years supply of food, we -both- benefit."
I am not disputing that. What I am merely pointing out is that your calculus is incomplete. You did not take into account what natural resources it took to grow that food. Did you drive a tractor? did you take water from the river? did you add fertilizer? did you deplete the soil of any nutrients?
No matter how careful or "organic" you grew that food just the fact that you had to be fed, sheltered and clothed while doing it means that you depleted the earth a little bit.
This is not a zero sum game. Sure some resources are renewable but not resource is being used in a renewable fashion right now.
I don't disagree with anything you say. I am simply pointing out what you said which is that all resources are being used faster then they can be replenished. More efficient? absolutely. Positive balance? Emphatically not.
"There _may_ be a limit, but it's likely far beyond what we are at now."
What possible evidence do you have to support such a statement. There are water shortages all over the world including the US. Do you remember the armed resistance to shutting off the water supply in Oregon last year? How much longer do you think california will be able to use the water from the surrounding states?
"Based on what data? "
Based on the data that there is not an infinite amount of anything in the universe. Furthermore the more scarce something becomes the harder it is to extract more of it. Finally vast removal of natural resources like trees and water tends to have effects on other parts of the ecosystem.
"The current wells won't refill (we've found that many in fact, do)"
Unless oil is being generated faster then we are using it one day it will run out.
"We don't ever find any new reserves (in fact the ocean contains a vast supply, and we continually find new reserves)"
Unless oil is being generated faster then we are using it one day it will run out.
"The price of oil stays the same"
First of all it does not. The price of oil today is not comperable to the price of oil in the 60s for example. Secondly the price only reflects the rate of extraction and nothing else. Let me illustrate.
Let's presume one second that you are the boss of the world. You then order that all the trees in the world be cut down. What would happen to the price of wood? It would drop down to nothing right? Too much supply, not enough demand.
Now there are some economists who would look at this and say that the amount of trees in the world must be increasing and in fact must be nearly infinate because the price of wood is dropping.
Where would they get their food from? You think tokyo japan raises enough food to feed it's citizens? You think tokyo japan makes enough oxygen to provide air for it's citizens?
Put a bubble over tokyo japan and everybody would die in a week.
You can't turn the world into Tokyo Japan. People have to eat, they have to build houses made out of wood, they have to breathe air, they need water to drink. Right now Tokyo is able to import all those things from places that are not densely populated. What do you do when everyplace is like Tokyo
Economy is a zero sum game when you take natural resources into account. This means it's impossible for everybody in the world to have the same standard of living as the US because there are not enough trees, water, and oil to accomplish such a thing.
The natural resources conundrum acts as a brake on the "rising tide". Due this effect in a smaller sense the economy is a zero sum gain across the world too. Because the natural resources can not be extracted fast enough money flows from one country to another.
Eventually radio and MTV will follow rather then lead. The idea is to get a grasroots following and then have the radio stations pick up the song because of the requests. Right now it's the other way around. Radio drives popularity rather then the other way around.
Keep your fingers crossed you may be watching a revolution in progress.
Slashdot Mirror
Insighful?
Should be +1 republican. There is no reason to show insight when you can simply parrot Rush LImbaugh and get modded up.
What about the author. The people who hold the actual copyright released it under the GPL because that was the most attractive license to them. If they wanted to release it under BSD or public domain they would have done so.
I think a court would have to give that quite a bit of weight. It seems to me that the intention of the copyright holders are the most important thing.
"Dumbass, you responded to me."
No, you replied to me first.
" I pick dipshits like you out of the masses"
Mmm interesting. You just randomly picked me out of the masses and started stalking me. Not only that but you measure your worth by how many friends you have slashdot. Oh and you threaten to write about me in your journal as if that was going to actually harm me or something.
I find your psycology facinating. For a long time I thought the idea of lonely boys hanging out at slashdot and trying to give meaning to their lives by accumulating karma or friends was kind of kooky but I guess they are true.
Sad and funny at the same time.
" I'm replying to see how long you continue to reply,"
Well the facts are clear on this. You replied to me. Why? I don't know. You keep stalking me. Why? I don't know. You are clearly obsessed with me. So much that you are going to put a whole writeup on me on your journal.
Why would a sane person do all this? Especially if as you say you have a hot grilfriend and a lexus? Isn't it more fun to fuck your girlfriend and drive your lexus? Apparently either you don't have those things or you find it more fun to stalk me and write about me in your journal.
Really, you need to get over your obsession with me. It's not healthy.
You find nothing of interest in my posts and yet you feel compelled to reply to them. This is very typical obsessive compulsive stalker behavior. The inability to stop yourself from doing things you are ashamed of. If you knew where I lived you'd find yourself driving by my house a lot or simply parking close by at night hoping to get a glimpse of me. Of course if you knew where I lived I'd get a restraining order.
Must be time for some SCO execs to sell stock then.
With a couple of degree it ought to be pretty easy to immigrate to another country. Maybe that's worth looking into. For example if you got citizenship in any EU country you can live and work throughout EU.
We don't have to hope for anything. It's already going south and will go even further as time goes by.
"In Afghanistan, I think the threat to us was fairly clear. Al-Queada, with the full approval of the Taliban, carried out 9/11. And they were probably using Afghan shelters to plan further attacks."
The taliban is a weird study. The taliban gained supremacy through airpower. They had somehow (quite possibly through russia or pakistan) gotten a hold of a MIG or two and used them to pound the opposition. I remember when Kabul fell the fight was so one sided. They kept marching north and were finally held off for a little while around mazari-sharif. If you recall it was around this time that Dostun fled the country. Before then the so called northern alliance was begging the US for help. They were asking for stingers or for the US military to take out the MIGS. They kept saying that they could take the taliban if only the MIGs were destroyed. The US turned a blind eye because at the time it was believed that stability in Afghanistan could only be achieved if a strong force could grip the country. Of course the stability of afghanistan is very important to build a pipeline into the arabian sea or the black sea (through turkey). There are several state dept documents stating this desire.
In the end we found out too late that we should have helped out earlier. Now of course afghanistan is pretty much back to the pre-taliban chaos and karzai is the president of kabul.
Iraq was no threat to anybody let alone the US. The reasons for attacking them had nothing to do with them being a threat to us. If it was Bush would be saying so right now. Instead he is talking about the mass graves his father made possible.
But you are a stalker. You are stalking me while pretending that you own a lexus and a hot chick (which face it is a pretty universal high school fantasy scenario).
if you have been around that long then your chances of getting hired doing meaningful work is slim. Good luck to you, I hope you don't end up as a greeter at walmart.
I don't think Bush would kill US citizens to win elections. He would start a war with iran or sryia if he thought he was going to lose the election though.
I'll jump in.
I don't think anybody argues that the taliban or saddam were not bad people. They clearly were. The problem is that nobody believes that they were routed because they were bad people. For example during the Reagan administration Saddam gassed the kurds and the iraqis. I am sure you have seen footage of the dead bodies littering the street. At that time human rights organizations cried foul, implored the US to do something, they begged the UN to do something. UN actually drafted a resolution condeming the chemical warfare. Do you know what happened to that resolution? The US vetoed it.
Saddam has been cruel and murderous for years and yet he was on the US dole, getting US help, getting US money, getting US intelligence. Why did Bush Jr all of a sudden decide to attack him? It wasn't because he was a bad man if it was he would have said so. He would have stood up in the UN and said "this guy is a sleazy murderer and we should get rid of him because of it". Why didn't he do that? I find that really curious don't you?
I would also like to point out that people are suffering horribly all over the world. Liberia comes to mind and so does palestine. Where is the mighty US army charging in to save the day? Why is Iraq and afghanistan so special?
I ask the last question rhetorically of course. We all know the importance of a stable afghanistan for piping caspian oil and of course all the iraqi oil wells are now under the firm control of the US army. In fact recently there was a law passed in Iraq that every industry in iraq had to allow foreign comapnies to compete for contracts. every industry except oil which was specifically exempted.
As for Dean. You probably argee with him on lots of issues. He is pro gun, fiscally conservative, for a smaller govt etc. During the recent debates he berated his fellow democrats for wanting to spend like crazy. I doubt you'll vote for him though. I find that most republicans would never vote for a democrat no matter who was running.
" You are just repeating yourself, without any merit or cause. In fact, it's almost as if that's what you want to happen."
Sorry. I must have said the same thing while you were stalking me anonymously. Sometimes it's hard to tell which stalker is which.
"I just like to make fun of dicks like you, and see how many times you will respond without saying anything that even comes close to showing you have any intelligence at all."
As I said I enjoy providing targets for obsessive compulsives like you. I figure that if you are too busy stalking me on slashdot then at least you are not out destroying your parent's car or setting off fireworks in the trailer park. Anything that keeps kids like you off the street is a valuable service to society I think.
How did somebody so confused get modded up to 5?
Moderators please understand that lindows is not suing M$. The parent post is lying.
As I said grease up your little pud and enjoy yourself. I am happy to provide a target for your sexual frustrations. Maybe I am not as much fun as real girl but I am less scary and will not laugh at you when you take your clothes off.
I do like posting here. If for no other reason then it attracts stalkers like you. I have lots of them. Some of them sexually stimulate themselves while reading my posts and replying to them. Feel free to butter yourself up and enjoy yourself.
"First off, economy can drastically shift the availability and distribution of resources. If lots of people need milk, then things can shift so that more people are producing milk."
Mmmm interesting. So you are saying that there is an infinate capacity for creating milk. That dedicating more resouces to creating milk will not deprive other resources too.
"Secondly, technology can dramatically increase the resources available. Increased mining efficiency, mineral scans, biotech crops, fertilizers, better farming practices, etc. can all increase the resources available, often with a direct increase in capital."
Technology can make better and more efficient use of resources but it can't make more of them. You can't make more metals or water.
"Thirdly, even if all the resources available were a fixed input, the economy would still be a positive sum game. When I trade you a back-hoe for a years supply of food, we -both- benefit."
I am not disputing that. What I am merely pointing out is that your calculus is incomplete. You did not take into account what natural resources it took to grow that food. Did you drive a tractor? did you take water from the river? did you add fertilizer? did you deplete the soil of any nutrients?
No matter how careful or "organic" you grew that food just the fact that you had to be fed, sheltered and clothed while doing it means that you depleted the earth a little bit.
This is not a zero sum game. Sure some resources are renewable but not resource is being used in a renewable fashion right now.
I don't disagree with anything you say. I am simply pointing out what you said which is that all resources are being used faster then they can be replenished. More efficient? absolutely. Positive balance? Emphatically not.
So you had no real rebuttal to anything I said so chose to attack me personally. That's cool I hope you had fun.
"There _may_ be a limit, but it's likely far beyond what we are at now."
What possible evidence do you have to support such a statement. There are water shortages all over the world including the US. Do you remember the armed resistance to shutting off the water supply in Oregon last year? How much longer do you think california will be able to use the water from the surrounding states?
"Based on what data? "
Based on the data that there is not an infinite amount of anything in the universe. Furthermore the more scarce something becomes the harder it is to extract more of it. Finally vast removal of natural resources like trees and water tends to have effects on other parts of the ecosystem.
"The current wells won't refill (we've found that many in fact, do)"
Unless oil is being generated faster then we are using it one day it will run out.
"We don't ever find any new reserves (in fact the ocean contains a vast supply, and we continually find new reserves)"
Unless oil is being generated faster then we are using it one day it will run out.
"The price of oil stays the same"
First of all it does not. The price of oil today is not comperable to the price of oil in the 60s for example. Secondly the price only reflects the rate of extraction and nothing else. Let me illustrate.
Let's presume one second that you are the boss of the world. You then order that all the trees in the world be cut down. What would happen to the price of wood? It would drop down to nothing right? Too much supply, not enough demand.
Now there are some economists who would look at this and say that the amount of trees in the world must be increasing and in fact must be nearly infinate because the price of wood is dropping.
They would be wrong.
Where would they get their food from? You think tokyo japan raises enough food to feed it's citizens? You think tokyo japan makes enough oxygen to provide air for it's citizens?
Put a bubble over tokyo japan and everybody would die in a week.
You can't turn the world into Tokyo Japan. People have to eat, they have to build houses made out of wood, they have to breathe air, they need water to drink. Right now Tokyo is able to import all those things from places that are not densely populated. What do you do when everyplace is like Tokyo
Two things.
Economy is a zero sum game when you take natural resources into account. This means it's impossible for everybody in the world to have the same standard of living as the US because there are not enough trees, water, and oil to accomplish such a thing.
The natural resources conundrum acts as a brake on the "rising tide". Due this effect in a smaller sense the economy is a zero sum gain across the world too. Because the natural resources can not be extracted fast enough money flows from one country to another.
Eventually radio and MTV will follow rather then lead. The idea is to get a grasroots following and then have the radio stations pick up the song because of the requests. Right now it's the other way around. Radio drives popularity rather then the other way around.
Keep your fingers crossed you may be watching a revolution in progress.
This is why I have always set up a
spamMe@somedomain.com as a real email address and use that for public email lists. It works great.