I have done this all the time for years. Ask Slashdot is an example of it, if you consider a continuum of question types that range between the extremes of "Where is a piece of information?" and "What's the best decision to make here?"
I can't quite figure out how my brain decides if a question is more appropriate for a search or querying friends on a forum or social network or in person. I do know that I get feedback if a search-type question is made into a friend query. And I give it, too! The hacker social networks I'm a part of are definitely less forgiving of this than the other groups I'm involved in, and those groups give me negative feedback if I am too negative toward a querist that I believe should be searching.
They said that about Mozilla for years. Sometimes the bazaar produces something that only few people find to be of any value for many many years that suddenly becomes of value to many people. Probably most projects never make it, period, but as long as someone finds it interesting to work on, more power to them.
If you don't find it of value, don't invest time or resources in it.:)
If you really like freedom even a little bit, you need to recognize Apple's freedom to run their business however they want.
I do not recognize a freedom to run a business however a person wants. For example, I wouldn't recognize a freedom to run a business that commits murder or theft.
In my opinion, intellectual property is theft. It is theft of a right that belongs to other people: the right to do whatever I want with my own property, including the right to store bits however I like. The theft is legal and sanctioned by both government and by large swaths of society, but I still recognize it as immoral, and I don't recognize a right to run a business this way. Your freedom ends where my nose begins, as they say.
The copyleft licenses use intellectual property law against itself, but they would be completely unnecessary if the law did not grant such monopoly privileges in the first place. Many people of course believe such monopoly grants are necessary and indispensable, but that is their belief, and not mine, and I don't recognize a right for people to force their beliefs onto others.
Right. I've never thought about that, and anarchists have never thought about that. I must be some idiot who missed this blinding hole in my plan, right?:)
When Clinton reduced social spending [wikipedia.org] while the Bush before and after him increased it - who do you vote for when you are against big government?
I used to be a one issue voter on abortion. I came to believe that the proposed means to stop abortion were going to be ineffective, were immoral, and were in fact campaign promises that would probably never be kept. Now when I look at who is being put out and hyped on that one issue, I cringe. And cry.
You have no real entitlement to monopoly control of bit patterns you create. This is important to mention, because some people believe they do, and the law says they do, but that doesn't make it so. It's just one religious opinion.
That's okay, anybody concerned about this can just not use Facebook. If they are really concerned, they could help the public and probably earn a bundle, too, by starting up a competitor that has better practices and expending their advertising funds educating the public as to why this is better.
Meanwhile, my concern is people like Barton and Markey, who keep taking my money against my will, and meddling in things like this, all the while claiming to "represent" me. Unfortunately this is not so easily solved as the Facebook problem, since the option to "just not use Congress" is not available to me, nor is the option to "just start a better one, and educate people with advertising so they will use yours and quit using the flawed one."
An oft-repeated sentiment on Slashdot is that we should change the situation by voting in better officials
Maybe so, but whoever says that is wrong. Having a popularity contest to decide who should have the next turn doing things nobody should be allowed to do is manifestly a bad idea.
Itâ(TM)s the policymakersâ(TM) responsibility to create a structure that leads to these technologies being put toward fuel economy
What a meddling attitude. While I certainly want better gas mileage, it is not somebody else's business to "make policy" for me, my cars, and my car manufacturer. Perhaps I like the tradeoffs as they are and prefer the increases in weight and horsepower.
If somebody thinks they morally possess such responsibility, they are suffering from delusions of grandeur and really need to be denounced as the lunatics they are.
I appreciate the distinction between "we" and "the US.":D
Personally, I'm ready to surrender. About ten years ago I supported some of the stuff we did, and I'm sorry for my role in that. I have no intention of doing more of the same to make things worse under the guise of "We have to now because people are mad at us!" With any luck they will not be able to afford to get across the ocean with enough strength to hit most of us.
I am more than ready for the US to lose its immunity for the consequences of its actions.
And I'm also ready for those who want to profit from the silk road to bear the full expense of their own security, rather than distributing it onto the rest of us.
Apple reportedly wrote 'In Icons', telling the Chinese manufacturer that any toy that resembles Apple's logo or products, or Job's name or appearance, is a 'criminal offense.'
No, not a criminal offense, any more than making such ridiculous statements is a criminal offense.
Attorneys believe a Steve Jobs action figure released after his death violates the 'right of publicity,' which is a state law
Bah. Laws don't make rights. They just justify bullies, tyrants, and parasites.
True law is immutable, not subject to a popularity contest.
Maybe everybody else is familiar with this term except for me, but I find it a bit off-putting for the submitter and the editors to not offer a small bit of explanation.
I don't remember PayPal having a "buyer is always right" policy. Of all the problems I've reported to PayPay, the response has always been a very slow investigation, sometimes culminating in "We have found out that you are in the right. We are able to recover $0.00, which we now return to you." Then I report the situation to my credit card, which refunds my money. Then PayPal sends me a "We wish you would have contacted us first about your dispute" letter.
I suppose in all that they nominally acknowledge that I'm right, but it's not exactly a vindication you can take to the bank, if you know what I mean.
I ask: Do you know who you will write-in if your congress-critter votes to pass SOPA? Can you name who you will vote for instead to your critter when you complain/threaten?
Can you explain why you continue to participate in abusive relationships where you "vote" for a parasite to take a turn telling you what you can and cannot do? It seems you think the only alternative is to pick a new person to take a turn being ruler and parasite. I would suggest the solution is not taking turns, but not having ruler-parasites at all.
If you make shoes and I start making shoes, your shoes are now worth less due to my competition (increase in supply), but I haven't done anything wrong.
If you make bit patterns and I make bit patterns, your bit patterns are now worth less due to my competition (increase in supply), but I still haven't done anything morally wrong, although I might have broken an unjust law that is attempting to override the laws of economics.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's not exactly price fixing, but they were given a government grant of monopoly which enabled this in the first place.
You'd have to give that question to the guy I was responding to, as he is the one who used the phrase "starving on a farm."
It's better than starving on a farm. It's really quite sad. Too bad NOTHING is made in the USA / Canada anymore.
Right. Then they could all starve on farms.
I'm pretty sure "calls to violence" are not legal speech in the West, either.
I have done this all the time for years. Ask Slashdot is an example of it, if you consider a continuum of question types that range between the extremes of "Where is a piece of information?" and "What's the best decision to make here?"
I can't quite figure out how my brain decides if a question is more appropriate for a search or querying friends on a forum or social network or in person. I do know that I get feedback if a search-type question is made into a friend query. And I give it, too! The hacker social networks I'm a part of are definitely less forgiving of this than the other groups I'm involved in, and those groups give me negative feedback if I am too negative toward a querist that I believe should be searching.
They said that about Mozilla for years. Sometimes the bazaar produces something that only few people find to be of any value for many many years that suddenly becomes of value to many people. Probably most projects never make it, period, but as long as someone finds it interesting to work on, more power to them.
If you don't find it of value, don't invest time or resources in it. :)
I agree. My rights end where other people's rights begin.
Murder or theft would of course involve the misuse of someone else's property: either their possessions or their person.
If you really like freedom even a little bit, you need to recognize Apple's freedom to run their business however they want.
I do not recognize a freedom to run a business however a person wants. For example, I wouldn't recognize a freedom to run a business that commits murder or theft.
In my opinion, intellectual property is theft. It is theft of a right that belongs to other people: the right to do whatever I want with my own property, including the right to store bits however I like. The theft is legal and sanctioned by both government and by large swaths of society, but I still recognize it as immoral, and I don't recognize a right to run a business this way. Your freedom ends where my nose begins, as they say.
The copyleft licenses use intellectual property law against itself, but they would be completely unnecessary if the law did not grant such monopoly privileges in the first place. Many people of course believe such monopoly grants are necessary and indispensable, but that is their belief, and not mine, and I don't recognize a right for people to force their beliefs onto others.
Right. I've never thought about that, and anarchists have never thought about that. I must be some idiot who missed this blinding hole in my plan, right? :)
When Clinton reduced social spending [wikipedia.org] while the Bush before and after him increased it - who do you vote for when you are against big government?
That's why I cast my vote for anarchy.
I used to be a one issue voter on abortion. I came to believe that the proposed means to stop abortion were going to be ineffective, were immoral, and were in fact campaign promises that would probably never be kept. Now when I look at who is being put out and hyped on that one issue, I cringe. And cry.
I knew it! I knew you couldn't stay away! Thanks for stopping by to be part of the omelet today!
You have no real entitlement to monopoly control of bit patterns you create. This is important to mention, because some people believe they do, and the law says they do, but that doesn't make it so. It's just one religious opinion.
That's okay, anybody concerned about this can just not use Facebook. If they are really concerned, they could help the public and probably earn a bundle, too, by starting up a competitor that has better practices and expending their advertising funds educating the public as to why this is better.
Meanwhile, my concern is people like Barton and Markey, who keep taking my money against my will, and meddling in things like this, all the while claiming to "represent" me. Unfortunately this is not so easily solved as the Facebook problem, since the option to "just not use Congress" is not available to me, nor is the option to "just start a better one, and educate people with advertising so they will use yours and quit using the flawed one."
An oft-repeated sentiment on Slashdot is that we should change the situation by voting in better officials
Maybe so, but whoever says that is wrong. Having a popularity contest to decide who should have the next turn doing things nobody should be allowed to do is manifestly a bad idea.
Itâ(TM)s the policymakersâ(TM) responsibility to create a structure that leads to these technologies being put toward fuel economy
What a meddling attitude. While I certainly want better gas mileage, it is not somebody else's business to "make policy" for me, my cars, and my car manufacturer. Perhaps I like the tradeoffs as they are and prefer the increases in weight and horsepower.
If somebody thinks they morally possess such responsibility, they are suffering from delusions of grandeur and really need to be denounced as the lunatics they are.
I appreciate the distinction between "we" and "the US." :D
Personally, I'm ready to surrender. About ten years ago I supported some of the stuff we did, and I'm sorry for my role in that. I have no intention of doing more of the same to make things worse under the guise of "We have to now because people are mad at us!" With any luck they will not be able to afford to get across the ocean with enough strength to hit most of us.
http://billstclair.com/blog/open_letter_of_conditional_surrender_in_the_war_on_terror.html
I am more than ready for the US to lose its immunity for the consequences of its actions.
And I'm also ready for those who want to profit from the silk road to bear the full expense of their own security, rather than distributing it onto the rest of us.
I think everybody should have this, and then everybody can watch to make sure that nobody is up to no good.
"The ability of the U.S. to compete globally is eroding."
That's fine with me. It's not a race.
Apple reportedly wrote 'In Icons', telling the Chinese manufacturer that any toy that resembles Apple's logo or products, or Job's name or appearance, is a 'criminal offense.'
No, not a criminal offense, any more than making such ridiculous statements is a criminal offense.
Attorneys believe a Steve Jobs action figure released after his death violates the 'right of publicity,' which is a state law
Bah. Laws don't make rights. They just justify bullies, tyrants, and parasites.
True law is immutable, not subject to a popularity contest.
lol, I only read bitcoin stories!
I had to Google to find out. Here's what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_deduplication
Maybe everybody else is familiar with this term except for me, but I find it a bit off-putting for the submitter and the editors to not offer a small bit of explanation.
I don't remember PayPal having a "buyer is always right" policy. Of all the problems I've reported to PayPay, the response has always been a very slow investigation, sometimes culminating in "We have found out that you are in the right. We are able to recover $0.00, which we now return to you." Then I report the situation to my credit card, which refunds my money. Then PayPal sends me a "We wish you would have contacted us first about your dispute" letter.
I suppose in all that they nominally acknowledge that I'm right, but it's not exactly a vindication you can take to the bank, if you know what I mean.
I ask: Do you know who you will write-in if your congress-critter votes to pass SOPA? Can you name who you will vote for instead to your critter when you complain/threaten?
Can you explain why you continue to participate in abusive relationships where you "vote" for a parasite to take a turn telling you what you can and cannot do? It seems you think the only alternative is to pick a new person to take a turn being ruler and parasite. I would suggest the solution is not taking turns, but not having ruler-parasites at all.
If you make shoes and I start making shoes, your shoes are now worth less due to my competition (increase in supply), but I haven't done anything wrong.
If you make bit patterns and I make bit patterns, your bit patterns are now worth less due to my competition (increase in supply), but I still haven't done anything morally wrong, although I might have broken an unjust law that is attempting to override the laws of economics.