Actually I seem to recall DHS paid a CIA analyst to do an impact study on global warming and climate change. Instead of looking at where temperatures are changing (which scientists are concerned about) the question posed was what will these changes mean. The result was that cities are not that robust. More than hurricanes, but I'm sure they were a part of it...
"For example, MacOS and Windows had a similar number of critical security patches last year."
Willing to stipulate for the purpose of this discussion.
However, there were dozens of Windows viruses and hundreds of thousands of compromised machines, and zero MacOS viruses.
Likewise willing to stipulate.
Thus, while a certain measure of vulnerability is comparable, the likelihood of actually being attacked is infinitely highder with Windows.
I would suggest this doesn't necessarily follow. It could be. It could also be that while both fixed the same number of holes, the percentage of holes fixed was different. It could be that x holes represented 85% of the mac holes, whereas the same exact number x was only 13% of the available windows holes.
Not saying one or the other interpretation is true. Just that the facts don't necessarily lead to the conclusion posited.
Speaking of other kernels, what about Solaris? If Linux stays at GPL2, and Solaris is releaseed as GPL3, would Solaris be in a position to replace Linux as the Free kernel of choice? Could Free Software advance even as Linux declines?
He added he cannot change the licence on his own anymore. "I mean, because I have accepted code over the last 15 years by people who kind of accepted my original choice of the GPL Version 2, I'm not just, I think, ethically bound by those people's choices, I am also actually legally bound," Torvalds said.
I think this is a case of "sour grapes". Due to a bad decision, he is locked into a single license now. It will only get worse. Eventually there will be a GPL4.
Wasn't that the excuse for excluding blacks from education? It won't help them because they aren't capable of learning. The fact is that systems can evolve and priming the pump works. To deny the possibility of change and betterment is akin to mental depression. Perhaps Zoloft would help.
Paraphrase: "Everyone and everything is just the same. You'd be just as bad if you had the chance. The only reason you're not a criminal too is that you don't have what it takes to be evil."
The fact is that not all people, and not all companies, are willing to do anything (and everything), regardless of law and morality, in order crush their competition. What you are suggesting, really, is "why single out individuals who act badly". What this means is that acting badly should be the status que. No.
Actually OpenOffice did a better job on old MS Word documents than MS Word did. At my old univ the physics dept kept OpenOffice around for just that purpose.
"There's no real reason for intellectual property laws, except to perpetuate the current industry which is based on IP laws."
I'm suggesting that intellectual property isn't property, and thus the industry "has no clothes." They are naked, pretending they are dressed in finery. The real reason for intellectual property laws, at this point, is indeed to perpetuate the scam. However, when the children point out the "king" is really "naked", it is a sign the end is near. Thus, I meant to tie your last sentence in with an interpretation of TFA.
"Intellectual property" is a blanket term that, by definition, encompasses (at least) the three legal areas you mentioned.
If somebody gets confused by a blanket term, it's because they are were confused to begin with.
You said, "I thought I was going insane, being the only one to make the point the AC just did."
My point was that it isn't just a matter of ambiguity, as would be suggested by,
"Do the people who reject "intellectual property" reject *all* umbrella terms? Like "significant other" and "toiletries"?
I even tried to point out how "significant other" would work. Toiletires (sic), being one term, can't fail in the method I suggested Intellectual Property fails. You have a point, which is that blanket phrases (i.e., the gathering of like objects under an umbrella phrase) has a valid use. I mentioned abstraction as an example of the valid use of that methodology. From the very beginning I pointed out that my argument is not an argument against abstraction, but rather an argument against mislabeling the abstraction. If the "blanket" were Intellectual Protections, then my objection would be addressed even though 3 separation protections were gathered under one phrase. Again, from the beginning, my point was that the phrase in question was objectionable because it used misdirection to imply something was other than it was, not because of a problem with abstracting similar things into a category.
The phrase in question does refer to several things that are different than property, which is my point. Mental capacity? Yes. I also have the emotional capacity to present my argument without slurring you. The point I made, which you didn't address, was that the phrase "intellectual property" makes as much sense as grouping machine guns, hand grenades, and thermonuclear bombs together and calling them Cohersion Aphrodisiacs, then refusing to admit that they aren't aphrodisiacs while insisting that they are useful tools for cohersion.
"There's no real reason for intellectual property laws, except to perpetuate the current industry which is based on IP laws."
Hans, is that you?
Many years ago, there lived an emperor who was quite an average fairy tale ruler, with one exception: he cared much about his clothes. One day he heard from two swindlers named Guido and Luigi Farabutto that they could make the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they said, also had the special capability that it was invisible to anyone who was either stupid or not fit for his position.
Being a bit nervous about whether he himself would be able to see the cloth, the emperor first sent two of his trusted men to see it. Of course, neither would admit that they could not see the cloth and so praised it. All the townspeople had also heard of the cloth and were interested to learn how stupid their neighbors were.
The emperor then allowed himself to be dressed in the clothes for a procession through town, never admitting that he was too unfit and stupid to see what he was wearing. He was afraid that the other people would think that he was stupid.
Of course, all the townspeople wildly praised the magnificent clothes of the emperor, afraid to admit that they could not see them, until a small child said:
"But he has nothing on!"
This was whispered from person to person until everyone in the crowd was shouting that the emperor had nothing on. The emperor heard it and felt that they were correct, but held his head high and finished the procession.
Perhaps we note that "significant other" refers to someone else, who is significant. Intellectual Property is *not* property. Hence the disdain for the phrase. Umbrellas are good when you abstract an essential essence from a group of terms. They are less good when they hide meaning, and even worse when they use the exact opposite meaning. War is peace, black is white, etc...
And to abstract your response, personal is orthogonal to public. Both commercial and educational productions are public. Of course, personal research would not be public..., but the results would be once published.
Hence the term "copyleft" to indicate the inherent paradox at the center of scheme. While stack-based thinking overflows, in a perfectly recursive world it makes sense!
Perhaps the 1st amendment in conjunction with the 4th amendment explicit right to due process, and the implicit 4th amendment right to privacy?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There has to be probable cause, at the very least. In this case the township *wanted* the blogger to be a specific person, and so they subpoenaed Google for the identity. They had no probable cause. In this case it wasn't about *what* was said that made it actionable, but rather *who* said it. The only possible crime would have been perjury (for stating that he wasn't the blogger, if he was.) I do agree there is a difference between a right to anonymity and a right to privacy and due process, but the later can be used to protect the status of the former.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. At least I've read the publications.
You seem to be the only one who read the same article I did. The problem to be addressed is one of transparancy and fairness.
But using a budget veto means there is no budget and thus no money.
Actually I seem to recall DHS paid a CIA analyst to do an impact study on global warming and climate change. Instead of looking at where temperatures are changing (which scientists are concerned about) the question posed was what will these changes mean. The result was that cities are not that robust. More than hurricanes, but I'm sure they were a part of it...
"For example, MacOS and Windows had a similar number of critical security patches last year."
Willing to stipulate for the purpose of this discussion.
However, there were dozens of Windows viruses and hundreds of thousands of compromised machines, and zero MacOS viruses.
Likewise willing to stipulate.
Thus, while a certain measure of vulnerability is comparable, the likelihood of actually being attacked is infinitely highder with Windows.
I would suggest this doesn't necessarily follow. It could be. It could also be that while both fixed the same number of holes, the percentage of holes fixed was different. It could be that x holes represented 85% of the mac holes, whereas the same exact number x was only 13% of the available windows holes.
Not saying one or the other interpretation is true. Just that the facts don't necessarily lead to the conclusion posited.
Speaking of other kernels, what about Solaris? If Linux stays at GPL2, and Solaris is releaseed as GPL3, would Solaris be in a position to replace Linux as the Free kernel of choice? Could Free Software advance even as Linux declines?
Wasn't that the excuse for excluding blacks from education? It won't help them because they aren't capable of learning. The fact is that systems can evolve and priming the pump works. To deny the possibility of change and betterment is akin to mental depression. Perhaps Zoloft would help.
Paraphrase: "Everyone and everything is just the same. You'd be just as bad if you had the chance. The only reason you're not a criminal too is that you don't have what it takes to be evil."
The fact is that not all people, and not all companies, are willing to do anything (and everything), regardless of law and morality, in order crush their competition. What you are suggesting, really, is "why single out individuals who act badly". What this means is that acting badly should be the status que. No.
Actually OpenOffice did a better job on old MS Word documents than MS Word did. At my old univ the physics dept kept OpenOffice around for just that purpose.
2006 Annual Net Income (IBM & GOOG don't show 2007 yet):
MSFT: $12,599,000,000
IBM: $9,492,000,000
GOOG: $3,077,446,000
What is amazing is Google's growth:
2006 - $3,077,446,000
2006 - $1,465,397,000
2006 - $399,119,000
At the heart of the matter is whether you should be allowed to type a copy of the book you bought. What about typing a copy of a library book?
Its certainly not free markets, but not so sure it isn't capitalism. Capitalism tends towards monopolies.
"There's no real reason for intellectual property laws, except to perpetuate the current industry which is based on IP laws."
I'm suggesting that intellectual property isn't property, and thus the industry "has no clothes." They are naked, pretending they are dressed in finery. The real reason for intellectual property laws, at this point, is indeed to perpetuate the scam. However, when the children point out the "king" is really "naked", it is a sign the end is near. Thus, I meant to tie your last sentence in with an interpretation of TFA.
My point was that it isn't just a matter of ambiguity, as would be suggested by, I even tried to point out how "significant other" would work. Toiletires (sic), being one term, can't fail in the method I suggested Intellectual Property fails. You have a point, which is that blanket phrases (i.e., the gathering of like objects under an umbrella phrase) has a valid use. I mentioned abstraction as an example of the valid use of that methodology. From the very beginning I pointed out that my argument is not an argument against abstraction, but rather an argument against mislabeling the abstraction. If the "blanket" were Intellectual Protections, then my objection would be addressed even though 3 separation protections were gathered under one phrase. Again, from the beginning, my point was that the phrase in question was objectionable because it used misdirection to imply something was other than it was, not because of a problem with abstracting similar things into a category.
The phrase in question does refer to several things that are different than property, which is my point. Mental capacity? Yes. I also have the emotional capacity to present my argument without slurring you. The point I made, which you didn't address, was that the phrase "intellectual property" makes as much sense as grouping machine guns, hand grenades, and thermonuclear bombs together and calling them Cohersion Aphrodisiacs, then refusing to admit that they aren't aphrodisiacs while insisting that they are useful tools for cohersion.
Methinks its Gaussian, not Poisson...
But a pig is an animal. A sheep is an animal. A crocodile is an animial.
Patents are not property. Trademarks are not property. Copyrights are not property.
You needs must modify the definition of property to include things that aren't real to pretend otherwise.
Hans, is that you?
Perhaps we note that "significant other" refers to someone else, who is significant. Intellectual Property is *not* property. Hence the disdain for the phrase. Umbrellas are good when you abstract an essential essence from a group of terms. They are less good when they hide meaning, and even worse when they use the exact opposite meaning. War is peace, black is white, etc...
And to abstract your response, personal is orthogonal to public. Both commercial and educational productions are public. Of course, personal research would not be public..., but the results would be once published.
Hence the term "copyleft" to indicate the inherent paradox at the center of scheme. While stack-based thinking overflows, in a perfectly recursive world it makes sense!
The real question is can you be forced (or others be forced to help,) to identify yourself if there is no suspicion of illegal activity?
Not: "Microsoft does have to provide a full list the patents that they believe Samba infringes."
Rather: MS must provide a full list of all patents that apply to this work.
That Samba infringes is only FUD. (But insightful FUD).