The external company would be the ones making the copies by preinstalling the software onto the phones, and they would be fulfilling the terms of the GPL by providing the source to the phone company. At this point, the phone company haven't made any copies, they have essentially just bought a shipment of goods. What compels them to be bound by the terms of the GPL? Don't you actually have to make copies to be bound by its terms?
It's copyright. Just because the guy on the street corner selling copies of DVD's didn't burn them himself (he got them from the guy who burns all day) doesn't mean he's not going to be hit for copyright infringement.
If HTC or Verizon or whoever isn't providing source they have no right to distribute the copyrighted material (the kernel, plus busybox or whatever is in there). Once they comply with the terms of the license, they have that right.
So, they need to stop distributing or comply with the license terms, otherwise they're liable under copyright law.
There are victims of this crime. Those who bought or didn't buy shares at the 'wrong' price because they didn't have the information that the insiders did. Insider trading causes the honest people to A) lose money or B) not make as much money. So there are victims and injuries.
Yep, one player in the market had 'more perfect' information than the others, so it wasn't a fair market.
OK, Slashcrowd, so what's the way to structurally prevent this from happening? SEC raids are expensive (both the raids and SEC compliance, which eats shareholder value) and not effective at preventing the crimes in the first place. Complete transparency of the companies isn't ideal (nor efficient) either. I don't know the answer, just hoping somebody here does.
You do realize that capitalism is entirely voluntary, right? If it wasn't 100% voluntary, it wouldn't be capitalism.
The only pure capitalism I see is at local self-organized farmers' markets. Ironically, largely patronized by people who vehemently criticize capitalism.
Just about everything else is taxed and regulated, which perturbs real market function.
Ah, that's the right question. I hope I know before I'm dead. It's possible the next John Locke is being born today.
Even if you make people vote for representatives directly, the latter will still organize into parties, because those who form blocs in the parliament have a power advantage over those who do not. Heck, that's precisely what happened with U.S. political system originally - many Founders were opposed to parties, but they formed nonetheless...
Condorcet is probably the best one (though also most complicated, so it may not be suitable for nations where education is a problem, and democracy is a new thing - I wouldn't suggest it for Afghanistan, for example)
Why? All voters have to do is rank their candidates in order of preference.
but in truth virtually any non-majoritarian system for parliamentary elections is enough to break the two-party lock-in
Yeah? The parliamentary systems I hear about always alternate back and forth between two main parties, with an occasional coalition of a small party with narrow aims.
The trouble with any party-based system is that parties usually represent the corners of any political space.
You think government picking up the trash makes it more efficient? What planet do you live on?
In my town we put the contract out for bid, and trash/recycling pickup costs $3/household/week. The incremental cost between houses is very small. My gasoline to get to the dump is more than $3, even if my time is worthless.
Now, I like this idea, it's neat, I just really hope it operates well over 18khz so my head does not explode all Scanners style when I walk into a room full of laptops.
We're not speaking about U.S. here, I presume, but rather countries with sane electoral systems, and hence sane governments that are responsible to their citizens (and act accordingly).
I have heard that Condorcet methods are used in a couple places, but I forget where.
In U.S., the choice between government and corporation is often meaningless because there's no real difference. But that's an artifact of your political system.
Right, somebody gave corporations human rights in the 1800's and created a fatal positive feedback loop in the government.
I'd be willing to pay 10% of my salary. However, I should mention, I'm not willing to pay 10% to support the current healthcare proposals. And the hospital hasn't asked me, so I'm assuming they don't need it.
Every hospital has a charitable fund, usually several for people who prefer to give to certain causes (cancer, children, etc.). Give 'em a call, they probably figure everybody knows about them (hospitals can be insular). Perhaps you could peg your donation for efforts to raise awareness about their funds if you see that as a major need.
and practicians keep their fares reasonable. (I don't know for Japan, but in France what they can ask for a given medical act is pretty regulated). And that may be the main problem with Obama's plan: you cannot just put patches on the current us system. Well you can try, but will it work?
You're exactly right. Our healthcare system was in pretty good shape until the early 70's. A healthy young man would pay $25/yr for major-medical health coverage. Adjusted for inflation and cost of providing care (MRI's, etc.) it's still 6x or so what it should be.
What changed was Medicare and the HMO act in the US. The government began setting prices, not the market. An inpatient aspirin can run you $100 and the government will pay it. So, everybody else has to also.
And in the case you'd like to see what is to my eyes the clearest proof public healthcare works, I invite you to look at the Infant mortality rate on wikipedia. You can also compare it with a GDP map, and wonder why America with its superior GDP lets its children die.
Yes, US does have a higher infant mortality rate that brings its overall rate down. But when you separate them, the US does better on adult mortality. With Europe and Japan's GDP, why do they let their elders die? The US has some geographic challenges which may be implicated with infant mortality. It also has extreme poverty, created by entitlement programs that cultivate a sub-culture of non-achievement and laws that drive poor young people into crime and broken families (see "Good Intentions" by Walter Williams on YouTube). If we could fix those problems and bring up the infant mortality rate, the total rate would be among the best in the world and better than Europe's, not just the adult rate. It's probably not a coincidence that European leaders and elite often come to the US for treatment. It's amazing the US does as well as it does given the artifical price inflation in the healthcare (non-)market.
It's been pretty amazing over the last few months watching Americans demand that the government NOT guarantee them affordable health care.
Fortunately, some Americans still get that we have a system based on negative reciprocity. Unfortunately, those who want a system based on positive rights won't go where they can easily get it. Back to fortunately, such a system will necessarily collapse of its own weight. Hopefully, when that happens it'll be re-built with more safeguards this time.
I'll take public welfare over corporate welfare any day
False choice. Public welfare vs. private welfare is the usual one (private charities are almost always more efficient and effective). But if you insist, FEMA vs. Walmart after Hurricane Katrina.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for the great response. May the meritocracy work this out.
why won't gcc take the patches?
Be careful, you're likely to start a "Steve Ballmer flashing his man-boobs" meme here.
sounds like they provision with ATM?
It's copyright. Just because the guy on the street corner selling copies of DVD's didn't burn them himself (he got them from the guy who burns all day) doesn't mean he's not going to be hit for copyright infringement.
If HTC or Verizon or whoever isn't providing source they have no right to distribute the copyrighted material (the kernel, plus busybox or whatever is in there). Once they comply with the terms of the license, they have that right.
So, they need to stop distributing or comply with the license terms, otherwise they're liable under copyright law.
Spec sheets ~= beer goggles.
Yep, one player in the market had 'more perfect' information than the others, so it wasn't a fair market.
OK, Slashcrowd, so what's the way to structurally prevent this from happening? SEC raids are expensive (both the raids and SEC compliance, which eats shareholder value) and not effective at preventing the crimes in the first place. Complete transparency of the companies isn't ideal (nor efficient) either. I don't know the answer, just hoping somebody here does.
At least with a black hole, if you're smart enough to stay away from the event horizon you'll be OK. We, on the other hand, are surely screwed.
The only pure capitalism I see is at local self-organized farmers' markets. Ironically, largely patronized by people who vehemently criticize capitalism.
Just about everything else is taxed and regulated, which perturbs real market function.
Yes, but what can you do?
Ah, that's the right question. I hope I know before I'm dead. It's possible the next John Locke is being born today.
Even if you make people vote for representatives directly, the latter will still organize into parties, because those who form blocs in the parliament have a power advantage over those who do not. Heck, that's precisely what happened with U.S. political system originally - many Founders were opposed to parties, but they formed nonetheless...
Agreed. Good intentions, ineffective execution.
Condorcet is probably the best one (though also most complicated, so it may not be suitable for nations where education is a problem, and democracy is a new thing - I wouldn't suggest it for Afghanistan, for example)
Why? All voters have to do is rank their candidates in order of preference.
but in truth virtually any non-majoritarian system for parliamentary elections is enough to break the two-party lock-in
Yeah? The parliamentary systems I hear about always alternate back and forth between two main parties, with an occasional coalition of a small party with narrow aims.
The trouble with any party-based system is that parties usually represent the corners of any political space.
Verizon installed a fiber node this past year in my neighborhood, yet I cannot get FiOS because "it's not done".
Around here they wouldn't even put DSLAM's in the FOX's. Why? "We don't do that".
Cold fusion is what happens when two ice cubes stick together.
And, to think I was lead to believe that was the technical name for an error message when a website crashes.
You think government picking up the trash makes it more efficient? What planet do you live on?
In my town we put the contract out for bid, and trash/recycling pickup costs $3/household/week. The incremental cost between houses is very small. My gasoline to get to the dump is more than $3, even if my time is worthless.
Now, I like this idea, it's neat, I just really hope it operates well over 18khz so my head does not explode all Scanners style when I walk into a room full of laptops.
Yeah, me too. For us and anybody who ones a dog:
yum install blueproximity
Eventually, another solution will be found, if the government doesn't get in the middle of it and start dictating how things will be.
But [...] child pornography [...] .
We're not speaking about U.S. here, I presume, but rather countries with sane electoral systems, and hence sane governments that are responsible to their citizens (and act accordingly).
I have heard that Condorcet methods are used in a couple places, but I forget where.
In U.S., the choice between government and corporation is often meaningless because there's no real difference. But that's an artifact of your political system.
Right, somebody gave corporations human rights in the 1800's and created a fatal positive feedback loop in the government.
I'd be willing to pay 10% of my salary. However, I should mention, I'm not willing to pay 10% to support the current healthcare proposals. And the hospital hasn't asked me, so I'm assuming they don't need it.
Every hospital has a charitable fund, usually several for people who prefer to give to certain causes (cancer, children, etc.). Give 'em a call, they probably figure everybody knows about them (hospitals can be insular). Perhaps you could peg your donation for efforts to raise awareness about their funds if you see that as a major need.
It's very admirable what you're doing.
I was talking about whether I'd rather pay taxes for some dude that needs a heart surgery or investment bank CEOs that need a bailout.
The trouble is, if you insist on the former, you'll get the latter. Concentration of money and power corrupts.
Best to give money to your local hospital so they can afford to do charity heart surgeries.
You're exactly right. Our healthcare system was in pretty good shape until the early 70's. A healthy young man would pay $25/yr for major-medical health coverage. Adjusted for inflation and cost of providing care (MRI's, etc.) it's still 6x or so what it should be.
What changed was Medicare and the HMO act in the US. The government began setting prices, not the market. An inpatient aspirin can run you $100 and the government will pay it. So, everybody else has to also.
Yes, US does have a higher infant mortality rate that brings its overall rate down. But when you separate them, the US does better on adult mortality. With Europe and Japan's GDP, why do they let their elders die? The US has some geographic challenges which may be implicated with infant mortality. It also has extreme poverty, created by entitlement programs that cultivate a sub-culture of non-achievement and laws that drive poor young people into crime and broken families (see "Good Intentions" by Walter Williams on YouTube). If we could fix those problems and bring up the infant mortality rate, the total rate would be among the best in the world and better than Europe's, not just the adult rate. It's probably not a coincidence that European leaders and elite often come to the US for treatment. It's amazing the US does as well as it does given the artifical price inflation in the healthcare (non-)market.
It's been pretty amazing over the last few months watching Americans demand that the government NOT guarantee them affordable health care.
Fortunately, some Americans still get that we have a system based on negative reciprocity. Unfortunately, those who want a system based on positive rights won't go where they can easily get it. Back to fortunately, such a system will necessarily collapse of its own weight. Hopefully, when that happens it'll be re-built with more safeguards this time.
I'm even willing to pay higher taxes to help cover these people, but the current plan doesn't explain how it will be paid for, among other problems.
How much more are you willing to pay? Have you donated that amount to your local hospital this year? Kudos if you have.
or you could say, government allows all citizens to provide for each other in an efficient and cost effective manner
Where can I find one of these governments that's not overrun with waste and corruption? I mean, aside from Star Trek.
I'll take public welfare over corporate welfare any day
False choice. Public welfare vs. private welfare is the usual one (private charities are almost always more efficient and effective). But if you insist, FEMA vs. Walmart after Hurricane Katrina.
No, government grants of vertically-integrated monopolies and protection of such.