"Electronic voting machines did not exist in significant quantities prior to the 2000 election. Given that there's no physical evidence to support the numbers that come out of the polls, it creates a definite sense of insecurity."
It seems perhaps you didn't read the articles. It is precisely the evidence that makes the election so suspect. Polling is a physical measure that should, with the law of large numbers, predict an outcome. The fact is that the only thing measured that was recorded disagrees with the offical outcome. Given that there is physical evidence, and the physical evidence is overwhelming, there is a very rational basis for "a definite sense of insecurity."
IANAL..., But the person who gets to defend that right is the copyright holder, not you (the poor victim who depended upon the terms of the GPL.) If the copyright holder takes them to court, and accepts "court costs + stopping distribution", then that is it. I don't see what standing you would have to sue since it wasn't your copyright that was violated...
I am capable of parsing personal presentations. Steve is one of the few... Your jokes are less than admirable. I resent your hollow mistaken sense of humor. Please adapt and grow a sense of consience. Thank you.
With a physical connection you are assured the mic is off. With a software controlled mute, what assurance do you have that an activex control didn't just unmute the mic for 5 sec.s?
"Any student who thinks he/she can afford an iPod, but not a book like this, has got seriously screwed-up priorities."
Agreed, there are few textbooks with the authority or staying power of Jackson (or Goldstein for mechanics, or Golub for matrix computation). However, while your evaluation of values is fine as far as it goes, when purchasing 4 books (or more) each semester, your model breaks. Should the point of higher education be "how much $$$ can we squeeze from our students this semester?"
I think what True Grit meant was that by directly exposing their customization options KDE increases their complexity. In contrast GNOME hides much of their customization options for the purpose of exhibiting simplicity. The post didn't appear to be about internals.
But you're not really stating that correctly. The purpose is to motivate the creation of more material, for a richer creative landscape that the public can enjoy. That's not the same as "public domain."
Actually I was stating it correctly. Historically, it has been for the establishment of material in the public domain. It is a recent occurance that the legal fiction of pseudo-property has entrenched itself enough to claim natural rights (as in real property). This has occured due to the persuassion of copyright owners, who wish to extend as far as possible the incentives originally granted (as a legal fiction). A pro-Eldred v. Ashcroft article at Duke Law & technology review begins this way:
In regards to copyright the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall have the power . . . to promote the Progress of Science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The intellectual property clause was added to the Constitution because of the recognition of the importance of balancing both an author's interest in protecting their creative works with the public interest in maintaining a method by which those same works could enter the public domain.
What is disturbing about the trend is reflected (also at the top of the page) thus:
It was also an accurate ruling because, under either a natural rights or property theory, copyright deserves infinite protection. The ruling has furthermore strong foundations because the CTEA is within the boundaries of both Constitutional limitations and Congressional intent, and its addition of the fair use exception accomplishes many of the same objectives that would be realized by allowing the work to fall into the public domain.
At least one problem with this is that DRM prevents the fair use exception. If I purchase a DVD player for my computer, and I purchase a DVD, I can't legally bypass the simple encryption to watch my DVD on my DVD player on my computer. When the copyright expires, I still can't. DRM is forever, and thus fair use disappears.
The original intent was, and historically the interpretation had been, that the purpose of copyright law was to increase the amount of material entering the public domain by providing artifical incentives (the "it's being protected for use by the artist as the artist sees fit", to which you refer).
The idea that there is a natural right associated with those things that are under copyright surely seems to fly in the face of the "securing for limited times", because natural rights do indeed deserve "infinite protection". While they didn't have it, it was obvious they were artifical and not natural rights. As they move towards achieving infinite protection, they might as well be natural rights...as wrong as that appears to be. When something is taken away from the public "for their own good", it isn't all that surprising that the good disolves away, too.
The purpose of copyright law is to maximize the amount of public domain material. Current trends to repurpose copyright as a fundamental right, as though it were actually property, fly in the face of this intention. You state, "I understand the differences, as well as the similarities." I sure don't see that in what you type.
Ah, but is it any better going the other way? Can you create an equation in Word, put it in Powerpoint, and then save it in Impress? Didn't think so...
Speaking of connected to reality, you do see the difference between physical objects such as hard drives or flat panel displays and software, yes? That difference is cruical to understanding the arugements in play here.
It isn't just about purchasing or not purchasing a piece of copyrighted work. It is also about organizing to attempt to get current laws back in tune with the original intent of copyright. The real question is how much does the public benefit from pretending that psuedo-property is property? The real problem is that people have started to believe that these are rights akin to those of property rights. To suggest that purchasing or not purchasing is the sum total of involvement is to buy in to the worldview to the point that it isn't possible to ask, "Is this still working? Is this fair? Should we modify copyright law?" What would be the effect be of keeping copyright pretty much as it is now, for instance, but limiting it to one year? At what interval would the public most benefit?
I agree. But since all major Linux distros run GNU utilities right now, why not drop the "GNU/" prefix until a time when it is actually necessary to differentiate between GNU and non-GNU flavours? =)
Or, just drop the "Linux" and call it GNU? The symmetry is the same, yes? Well, not in terms of code...;-)
Actually BSD was more than good enough. At the time, however, there was a lawsuit between UCB and ATT. While the resultant settlement left BSD in the clear, at the time the linux kernel was viewed as being safer. The fact that the linux kernel was released under the GPL also meant a lot to GNU-minded individuals. Today, there is no legal reason not to run GNU/BSD, and Debian has that "flavor" available. If it weren't for the lawsuit, no doubt history (and, as you say, reality) would be very different.
Because there is no right to privacy in the Constitution (or at least not until 1973).
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
You say, "Note the difference between civil liberties and the right to privacy." But then you don't suggest any difference. The United Nations recognizes the right to privacy. The US Supreme Court recognizes the right to privacy. De jure (as well as de facto), there is in the USA a constitutional right to privacy. It isn't spelled out directly, but it is implied (or so says the US Supreme court...)
Agreed, it is absurd to state that "government transparency and personal privacy equals democracy". What is not absurd is to state that without government transparency and personal privacy, democracy won't exist. These are conditions that are necessary, but not sufficent.
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
The fact is that the USA implements a representative democracy. We are in fact a Democratic Republic. Note that while a democracy doesn't have to be a republic, the two are certainly not mutually exclusive. From the very beginning the "Founding Fathers" had a distrust of abuse of power. They built in a system of checks and ballances which, while also not part of the definition of democracy, is certainly central to this one specific implementation (USA). I would suggest these checks and ballances where for the express purpose of avoiding any slippery slope back into an authoritarian form of government.
In terms of core differences contrasting authoritarian (i.e., "of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people") forms of government with constitutionally based democracies, I'd have to suggest your statement
the "right to privacy" has nothing to do with form of government
very naive. Civil liberties where historically the root cause of the "fork" from authoritarian forms of governments. The declaration of independence opens with an enumeration of rights. The constitution's first 10 amendments are even called the Bill of Rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In response to 9-11 we here in the USA have seen our civil liberties distorted perhaps even to the point of peversion (pevert: 1 a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right : CORRUPT).
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Therefor, I salute our new DarkNet Lords of (Civil) Liberty!
"What do you think the odds of joe schmoe trying to compile the latest kernel getting help from those guys are though?" What are the odds that "joe-schmoe" has bought a ProLiant or HP BladeSystem server rather than a consumer device? If all you want is to upgrade your kernel, apt-get makes this easy. If you want the "latest" kernel (meaning you want to be ahead of the debian release cycle) then I'd think you were on your own. I don't see how that would be covered "as part of the warranty coverage for its Debian Linux servers", which is how this support is packaged.
"Debian is "ready" for the desktop...", but what does this have to do with HP providing support for "its ProLiant and HP BladeSystem servers"? Why install a GUI, let alone Flash, for a server? Interesting post, but somewhat off topic...
MS didn't *start* the fire, but they built the house using materials that are outrageously flamable. The expected events (fire, need for fire trucks, etc...) still occur, though perhaps with a statistical distribution rather than a match tossed into gasoline soaked hay. Thing is, negligence is a form of criminal intent.
The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, and Ada, as well as libraries for these languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...).
GCJ is a portable, optimizing, ahead-of-time compiler for the Java Programming Language. It can compile Java source code to Java bytecode (class files) or directly to native machine code, and Java bytecode to native machine code.
In terms of levels of dishonesty, you can't really compare market "pumping" to the criminal behavior of Microsoft. Ask yourself who you would trust: David bragging about his slingshot, or Gollaith after the war crimes tribunal has already found Gollaith guilty?
Honestly, if you really believe Apple to be more dishonest than Microsoft, it makes me question what you mean by "honest". Could you mean "Marked by or displaying integrity" or "equitable; fair"? I think not. You certainly can't mean "of good repute; respectable". The only way to even try to say Microsoft is more honest than Apple is to blind oneself to Microsoft's criminal market abuses.
Slashdot Mirror
"Electronic voting machines did not exist in significant quantities prior to the 2000 election. Given that there's no physical evidence to support the numbers that come out of the polls, it creates a definite sense of insecurity."
It seems perhaps you didn't read the articles. It is precisely the evidence that makes the election so suspect. Polling is a physical measure that should, with the law of large numbers, predict an outcome. The fact is that the only thing measured that was recorded disagrees with the offical outcome. Given that there is physical evidence, and the physical evidence is overwhelming, there is a very rational basis for "a definite sense of insecurity."
IANAL..., But the person who gets to defend that right is the copyright holder, not you (the poor victim who depended upon the terms of the GPL.) If the copyright holder takes them to court, and accepts "court costs + stopping distribution", then that is it. I don't see what standing you would have to sue since it wasn't your copyright that was violated...
Well my scroll wheel is sure working. So are my arrow keys. Did you try the original website's demo? It looks like HTML merged with an Outliner.
Of course you, as a user, can mix and match. You just can't distribute it if the licenses aren't compatible. Copyright is about distribution, not use.
Actually they weren't so much "picked on", as they were "competed with". GNOME was started just for this sole purpose. It worked.
I am capable of parsing personal presentations. Steve is one of the few... Your jokes are less than admirable. I resent your hollow mistaken sense of humor. Please adapt and grow a sense of consience. Thank you.
With a physical connection you are assured the mic is off. With a software controlled mute, what assurance do you have that an activex control didn't just unmute the mic for 5 sec.s?
"Any student who thinks he/she can afford an iPod, but not a book like this, has got seriously screwed-up priorities."
Agreed, there are few textbooks with the authority or staying power of Jackson (or Goldstein for mechanics, or Golub for matrix computation). However, while your evaluation of values is fine as far as it goes, when purchasing 4 books (or more) each semester, your model breaks. Should the point of higher education be "how much $$$ can we squeeze from our students this semester?"
I think what True Grit meant was that by directly exposing their customization options KDE increases their complexity. In contrast GNOME hides much of their customization options for the purpose of exhibiting simplicity. The post didn't appear to be about internals.
The original intent was, and historically the interpretation had been, that the purpose of copyright law was to increase the amount of material entering the public domain by providing artifical incentives (the "it's being protected for use by the artist as the artist sees fit", to which you refer).
The idea that there is a natural right associated with those things that are under copyright surely seems to fly in the face of the "securing for limited times", because natural rights do indeed deserve "infinite protection". While they didn't have it, it was obvious they were artifical and not natural rights. As they move towards achieving infinite protection, they might as well be natural rights...as wrong as that appears to be. When something is taken away from the public "for their own good", it isn't all that surprising that the good disolves away, too.
The purpose of copyright law is to maximize the amount of public domain material. Current trends to repurpose copyright as a fundamental right, as though it were actually property, fly in the face of this intention. You state, "I understand the differences, as well as the similarities." I sure don't see that in what you type.
Ah, but is it any better going the other way? Can you create an equation in Word, put it in Powerpoint, and then save it in Impress? Didn't think so...
Speaking of connected to reality, you do see the difference between physical objects such as hard drives or flat panel displays and software, yes? That difference is cruical to understanding the arugements in play here.
It isn't just about purchasing or not purchasing a piece of copyrighted work. It is also about organizing to attempt to get current laws back in tune with the original intent of copyright. The real question is how much does the public benefit from pretending that psuedo-property is property? The real problem is that people have started to believe that these are rights akin to those of property rights. To suggest that purchasing or not purchasing is the sum total of involvement is to buy in to the worldview to the point that it isn't possible to ask, "Is this still working? Is this fair? Should we modify copyright law?" What would be the effect be of keeping copyright pretty much as it is now, for instance, but limiting it to one year? At what interval would the public most benefit?
moderators, the parent is not a troll... thanks
Actually BSD was more than good enough. At the time, however, there was a lawsuit between UCB and ATT. While the resultant settlement left BSD in the clear, at the time the linux kernel was viewed as being safer. The fact that the linux kernel was released under the GPL also meant a lot to GNU-minded individuals. Today, there is no legal reason not to run GNU/BSD, and Debian has that "flavor" available. If it weren't for the lawsuit, no doubt history (and, as you say, reality) would be very different.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
You say, "Note the difference between civil liberties and the right to privacy." But then you don't suggest any difference. The United Nations recognizes the right to privacy. The US Supreme Court recognizes the right to privacy. De jure (as well as de facto), there is in the USA a constitutional right to privacy. It isn't spelled out directly, but it is implied (or so says the US Supreme court...)
Agreed, it is absurd to state that "government transparency and personal privacy equals democracy". What is not absurd is to state that without government transparency and personal privacy, democracy won't exist. These are conditions that are necessary, but not sufficent.
The fact is that the USA implements a representative democracy. We are in fact a Democratic Republic. Note that while a democracy doesn't have to be a republic, the two are certainly not mutually exclusive. From the very beginning the "Founding Fathers" had a distrust of abuse of power. They built in a system of checks and ballances which, while also not part of the definition of democracy, is certainly central to this one specific implementation (USA). I would suggest these checks and ballances where for the express purpose of avoiding any slippery slope back into an authoritarian form of government.
In terms of core differences contrasting authoritarian (i.e., "of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people") forms of government with constitutionally based democracies, I'd have to suggest your statement very naive. Civil liberties where historically the root cause of the "fork" from authoritarian forms of governments. The declaration of independence opens with an enumeration of rights. The constitution's first 10 amendments are even called the Bill of Rights. In response to 9-11 we here in the USA have seen our civil liberties distorted perhaps even to the point of peversion (pevert: 1 a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right : CORRUPT).
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Therefor, I salute our new DarkNet Lords of (Civil) Liberty!
"What do you think the odds of joe schmoe trying to compile the latest kernel getting help from those guys are though?" What are the odds that "joe-schmoe" has bought a ProLiant or HP BladeSystem server rather than a consumer device? If all you want is to upgrade your kernel, apt-get makes this easy. If you want the "latest" kernel (meaning you want to be ahead of the debian release cycle) then I'd think you were on your own. I don't see how that would be covered "as part of the warranty coverage for its Debian Linux servers", which is how this support is packaged.
"Debian is "ready" for the desktop...", but what does this have to do with HP providing support for "its ProLiant and HP BladeSystem servers"? Why install a GUI, let alone Flash, for a server? Interesting post, but somewhat off topic...
MS didn't *start* the fire, but they built the house using materials that are outrageously flamable. The expected events (fire, need for fire trucks, etc...) still occur, though perhaps with a statistical distribution rather than a match tossed into gasoline soaked hay. Thing is, negligence is a form of criminal intent.
You do fully believe that a criminal is more honest than a braggert. Amazing. Frightening, too.
In terms of levels of dishonesty, you can't really compare market "pumping" to the criminal behavior of Microsoft. Ask yourself who you would trust: David bragging about his slingshot, or Gollaith after the war crimes tribunal has already found Gollaith guilty?
Honestly, if you really believe Apple to be more dishonest than Microsoft, it makes me question what you mean by "honest". Could you mean "Marked by or displaying integrity" or "equitable; fair"? I think not. You certainly can't mean "of good repute; respectable". The only way to even try to say Microsoft is more honest than Apple is to blind oneself to Microsoft's criminal market abuses.