A bunch of old people refused to turn on their air conditioners because they didn't want to spend the money. They didn't take into consideration the fact that they were old and had health problems. Heat that normally wouldn't have affected them years ago ended up killing them. If you know you're old and sick, and you have an air conditioner, and you don't use it, who's fault is that? Not ComEd's.
The people who allowed themselves to be killed by a heatwave in Chicago in the mid ninties when they could have avoided it are exactly the reason why I hold my position. And don't go droning on about the people who didn't have air conditioners because that's not what the post was about.
Funny thing is, a heat wave usually only lasts a week or two and my power bill is on a 30 day cycle. If it's hot and my choice is turn the air of and die or turn it on and pay the bill, I'm going to turn it on a couple hours a day to keep the temps evened out a bit and pay the price over the next couple of months. Anybody who has an air conditioner and dies from a heat wave is a moron.
Then maybe you should be out working instead of posting socialist drivel on/.
(BROKEN HTML REMOVED FOR CLARITY) Said someone posting on/.
I know. Ironic, isn't it? When someone has time for luxury activities like screwing off on the web or watching TV, working harder might improve their quality of life.
I'm sorry. Do you thing someone who is poor doesn't have the right to speak? Or did you mean something else? (If so, I haven't the slightest idea what.)
Yes. I meant something else. It was a tongue-in-cheek comment meant to imply that if he had time to post to/. there was probably room in his busy schedule to make more than $7k/yr. If you couldn't figure that out, you have the intuition of a grapefruit.
Perhaps you feel that there's always a job to be done for pay. You might. My guess is that someone earning $7,000 per year is a college student. This would open him to other criticisms, perhaps, so he might not mention it. (I've seen several posters who basically asserted that if you were a student you had no right to ideas on economics.)
Yup. That's pretty much how it goes. You could earn $7k/yr mowing lawns, for crying out loud. I have friends in college who are earning 15k or more working part time. Again, if you're only making $7k/yr, you're not trying real hard. To then post a bunch of socialist drivel that all the people who _ARE_ busting their humps somehow owe you is just lame.
Whatever. I'm not a student. And I've worked most of my life. And I'm doing well above average. And I see no evidence at all that the average person has a fair chance.
So you're somehow better than everybody else? Somehow you are able to accomplish something and nobody else is going to be able to do what you did? What makes you so unique? Or did you not have a fair chance? Did you kill somebody to get where you are? Did you lie? cheat? steal? Or are you just a hypocrite?
Some people have a much better than fair chance, and some people have a less than fair chance. Some people had a fair chance, and blew it.
You have the same chance as everybody else every day you wake up and draw breath. That's all there is to it. I've been there and back again. You think the world isn't fair? You're right. Boo-fucking-hoo! Get over it, get your ass in gear, and get to work. Five years ago I was unemployed and homeless and today I make damned good coin. I've been at both ends of the spectrum and everywhere in between. I've been in fair and unfair situations and you know what? The only constant was the fact that I was determined to keep going and better myself. That's nothing anybody else in this country can't do.
But I see no way that one worker is worth more the --- O, let's be generous --- 1000 times what another worker is worth.
Nope. Me either. A person is invaluable. The work they do, on the other hand, can be worth next to zero. The guy who asks you if you'd like fries with that is an example. It can also be worth more than that of a human life. The guy who saves lives every day at work when morons drive into trees and are in danger of bleeding to death is an example. If a person does work, they should be compensated for that work in a manner commensurate with the value of the work. What's so hard to understand about that? And who the fuck cares about pay disparities in Athens? WTF are you on about?
Minimum wage pays about 10K/yr or so. A modest appartment costs 4800/yr. Still not enough bread to go around? Get a bloody room mate. I used to live in one of those crappy appartments. It was recent enough ago that I still have the beat up garage-sale pots and pans I was cooking my generic macaroni and cheese in. In another couple years I'll be living in a "mansion" by some people's definitions. A rather nice house by my own, but either way, who are you or is anyone else to say if I do or do n
Re:I hope he gets the nomination too!
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
We don't bring it "in-house" because the Gov. isn't in the business of running schools, engineering weapons, building airplanes, or anything else it would have to do to be involved in this kind of work. And it shouldn't be, either. Typically, having the Federal government do something is a good way to guarantee that it won't be done the most efficient or (cost) effective way. And perhaps we're not paying bargain basement prices for our military equipment. There are some times you really don't want to just give the job to the lowest bidder. Like, when the defense of the nation is on the line. You want the engineering firms to compete on something other than price, like quality of design, track record for building airplanes properly, Let the Pentagon come up with specs for what it wants, let several companies make their proposals, and pick the best (not necessarily the cheapest) one. If we pay a premium for our satellite guided weapons delivery systems, that's fine so long as they work and save lives. If we pay a premium for the parachutes on our men's backs, that's fine as long as they work and save lives.
Re:I hope he gets the nomination too!
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
I don't really think we need a huge military. We do need one, but we're spending a bit much on it. I'd prefer to give the soliers more money though, not the defense contractors.
WHAT? What, in God's name, are you talking about? Ignoring the first half of that rediculous statement for a second, don't you realise that giving money to defense contractors keeps soldiers alive? If you were a soldier would you rather have the most high tech equipment the world has ever seen, or would you rather have to just take your chances standing in front of bullets and hoping you don't get hit by one?
It's not just that, either. There's an inherent evil in assuming that your fellow man can't get by and succeed without your "generosity". This is what really bugs me about three of the great bastions of the political left: Unions, Welfare, and Afirmative Action. They are each pretentious incarnations of the same elitist notion that "they" can't make it without "us" helping them. "They" will never be successfull or even able to scratch out a living, so we have to give them our table scraps. "They" can't get into college without us fudging their test scores or lowering the bar. "They" can't stand up to their employers unless we shepherd them through a strike. Holy festering fuck, man. How condescending do you have to be to buy into these ideals?
You know what drives conservatives to dislike welfare? It's not just that we think it's better to teach a person skills than give them money, it's also that we have ultimate faith in that person to accomplish on their own without our bloody help. It's not that we don't want "Them" in our school, it's that we know they can make it without our condescending "help" if "they" try. It's not that we want "them" to suffer at the hands of their employer with no right to organize, it's that we know if they do their best, their employers won't want to screw them over because they will be valuable assets.
I see no need to attach a politically correct disclaimer to my post in order to garner false legitimacy. I _AM_ a republican, and I _AM_ a conservative.
I assume that the only reason this hasn't been marked "insightful" is that most people didn't get it. What a shame. Talk about hitting the nail on the head...
Yes, it uses a lot of fuel to start them and warm them up to the point where you would want to drive them, and it doesn't use all that much (relative to a 150 gallon tank) to idle them, but I don't think it takes 2000k mi worth of fuel to start them. 20 miles? Maybe. 2000? no way.
We have one a couple miles from where I live and it still has the speakers on the wires that you set on your window like tray from a drive in restaurant.
Nah. I don't think it was that confusing (or confused). Perhaps it would be easier to interpret if I said it this way:
The people who would let Red Hat come inspect them for service agreement compliance are the same people who would let Micros~1 inspect them for license compliance. Those people, myself included, who don't like that type of contract would choose a distribution other than Red Hat Advanced Server even though it is not a software license restriction, per se.
Whether it is legal for the end user to distribute the software is not in question. In cases of contradictions, the least restrictive license is generally followed. The question is whether or not it is legal for Red Hat to continue to claim they are distributing the software under the Gnu GPL. Since they are own the copyright, at least for the compilation, they are welcome to use another license, just not under this one.
This isn't a license. A license is a grant of permission by a copyright holder to use a protected work. This has no language in it that implies any sort of license other than what I posted above regarding the notice that the work is GPL licensed. This is a services subscription agreement. It does not govern your use of the software. It governs the service you seek from Red Hat.
Red Hat Advanced Server product is a bundle of software and services. If you don't want the services, you can still use the software. One of the services is to compile and package binary copies of the software. Another is to allow you access to RHN and other support channels. If you don't want the service, don't purchace a boxed copy of the software because you are paying for the whole package, software and services. When you purchace the services by purchacing the packaged product, you then have to agree to the service agreement. If you just want the software, download it from redhat.com.
Again, there is _NO_ restriction on the software. If you download the SRPMs for the software that comprises a part of the software component of Red Hat Advanced Server, this agreement would have no bearing on that software. The agreement only covers use of the Advanced Server product. One portion of that product is a software component that they can not stop you from using.
"The Software" in the agreement is not just the GPL'ed code. It's the entirety of RH AS. RH AS is a package of software and services. An installed system is a system with RH AS on it. That is, an "Installed System" consists of Linux and associated programs, plus configuration, set up, and access to support services. They have no right to govern your use of the GPL'ed code. They have every right to govern your use of the support services.
So again, if you want to compile all the RPMs and install all the components that would go into an RH AS system, but not configure or access any support services, more power to you.
and the "Or what?" is that they will void your agreement, not take away your license to use the software. That's the key that keeps the GPL intact here. If anyone at all had ever read section 1.2 we'd be in good shape.
1.2 Termination for Breach. Red Hat may terminate this Agreement (a) in the event Customer fails to pay an invoice when due, (b) in the event Customer commits a material breach of this Agreement and fails to remedy that breach within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice of material breach, or (c) as otherwise provided in this Agreement. Customer may terminate this Agreement in the event Red Hat commits a material breach of this Agreement and fails to remedy that breach within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice of material breach.
The restriction isn't on the distribution of the software (which is what the GPL is concerned with). The restriction is on the service contract. Your service contract is valid untill you install N+1 copies. At that time the service contract is invalid. That does not restrict you from legaly installing the software. It does restrict you from seeking support services. They added zero terms that restrict the legality of the installation or distribution.
In fact, from the agreement itself:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. Subject to the trademark use limitations set forth below, Red Hat grants Customer a license in this collective work pursuant to the GNU General Public License.
When are people going to learn to read the WHOLE agreement? When are people going to stop comparing this to an MS eula? If the BSA (on MS's behalf as an appointed auditor) comes in and counts your machines and you haven't paid for enough licenses, they take you to court and threaten to to cancel your license to use the software. When RH asks you how many machines you've got and you lie to them, they will ask you to pay for support as per the support agreement or they will cancel the support agreement. They can not revoke your license to use the software. There is no conflict with the GPL because this is not a restriction on use of the software. It's a restriction on getting service from Red Hat for the software you're using. Would somebody please stop moding this crap up? It's misinformed if not patently ignorant.
This applies to the grandparent post even more with the pretentious line about sounding like a hypocrite. Perhaps the author should have read the document lest he sound like an ignorant troll.
Not the people who buy Advanced Server (to which that service agreement is attached.)
They are the very same people who slurp up MS products year after year, crappy revision after crappy revision. The folks like you and me who don't like the MS eula might switch to Linux to avoid it, but we wouldn't be choosing Red Hat Advanced Server. In any case, RH is interested in making sure you aren't trying to get them to support more machines than you have paid for since this is only a support agreement. They are not trying to prevent you from using the software which is the intent of the MS eula so I don't think the two are terribly comparable.
This is utter crap spewed by someone who hasn't taken the time to read the "license", which is really nothing more than a support agreement in drag. _ALL_, that is to say, 100% of the code is GPL or other OSS license. None of the RHAT additives are closed in any way. If you want the SRPMs, download them and rpm -b them yourself. I have copies of the.iso files. They're not hard to get. Sure. Red Hat won't just hand them to you, but you don't _HAVE_ to pay for them. I'm tired of people who don't know how the GPL works misinforming others. RTFL! If they didn't hand out the source for free, Stallman would revoke their license for all the GNU stuff in a blink.
Slashdot Mirror
No need. I was there. I live in Chicago, son.
A bunch of old people refused to turn on their air conditioners because they didn't want to spend the money. They didn't take into consideration the fact that they were old and had health problems. Heat that normally wouldn't have affected them years ago ended up killing them. If you know you're old and sick, and you have an air conditioner, and you don't use it, who's fault is that? Not ComEd's.
The people who allowed themselves to be killed by a heatwave in Chicago in the mid ninties when they could have avoided it are exactly the reason why I hold my position. And don't go droning on about the people who didn't have air conditioners because that's not what the post was about.
Funny thing is, a heat wave usually only lasts a week or two and my power bill is on a 30 day cycle. If it's hot and my choice is turn the air of and die or turn it on and pay the bill, I'm going to turn it on a couple hours a day to keep the temps evened out a bit and pay the price over the next couple of months. Anybody who has an air conditioner and dies from a heat wave is a moron.
Then maybe you should be out working instead of posting socialist drivel on /. /.
/. there was probably room in his busy schedule to make more than $7k/yr. If you couldn't figure that out, you have the intuition of a grapefruit.
(BROKEN HTML REMOVED FOR CLARITY)
Said someone posting on
I know. Ironic, isn't it? When someone has time for luxury activities like screwing off on the web or watching TV, working harder might improve their quality of life.
I'm sorry. Do you thing someone who is poor doesn't have the right to speak? Or did you mean something else? (If so, I haven't the slightest idea what.)
Yes. I meant something else. It was a tongue-in-cheek comment meant to imply that if he had time to post to
Perhaps you feel that there's always a job to be done for pay. You might. My guess is that someone earning $7,000 per year is a college student. This would open him to other criticisms, perhaps, so he might not mention it. (I've seen several posters who basically asserted that if you were a student you had no right to ideas on economics.)
Yup. That's pretty much how it goes. You could earn $7k/yr mowing lawns, for crying out loud. I have friends in college who are earning 15k or more working part time. Again, if you're only making $7k/yr, you're not trying real hard. To then post a bunch of socialist drivel that all the people who _ARE_ busting their humps somehow owe you is just lame.
Whatever. I'm not a student. And I've worked most of my life. And I'm doing well above average. And I see no evidence at all that the average person has a fair chance.
So you're somehow better than everybody else? Somehow you are able to accomplish something and nobody else is going to be able to do what you did? What makes you so unique? Or did you not have a fair chance? Did you kill somebody to get where you are? Did you lie? cheat? steal? Or are you just a hypocrite?
Some people have a much better than fair chance, and some people have a less than fair chance. Some people had a fair chance, and blew it.
You have the same chance as everybody else every day you wake up and draw breath. That's all there is to it. I've been there and back again. You think the world isn't fair? You're right. Boo-fucking-hoo! Get over it, get your ass in gear, and get to work. Five years ago I was unemployed and homeless and today I make damned good coin. I've been at both ends of the spectrum and everywhere in between. I've been in fair and unfair situations and you know what? The only constant was the fact that I was determined to keep going and better myself. That's nothing anybody else in this country can't do.
But I see no way that one worker is worth more the --- O, let's be generous --- 1000 times what another worker is worth.
Nope. Me either. A person is invaluable. The work they do, on the other hand, can be worth next to zero. The guy who asks you if you'd like fries with that is an example. It can also be worth more than that of a human life. The guy who saves lives every day at work when morons drive into trees and are in danger of bleeding to death is an example. If a person does work, they should be compensated for that work in a manner commensurate with the value of the work. What's so hard to understand about that? And who the fuck cares about pay disparities in Athens? WTF are you on about?
Minimum wage pays about 10K/yr or so. A modest appartment costs 4800/yr. Still not enough bread to go around? Get a bloody room mate. I used to live in one of those crappy appartments. It was recent enough ago that I still have the beat up garage-sale pots and pans I was cooking my generic macaroni and cheese in. In another couple years I'll be living in a "mansion" by some people's definitions. A rather nice house by my own, but either way, who are you or is anyone else to say if I do or do n
We don't bring it "in-house" because the Gov. isn't in the business of running schools, engineering weapons, building airplanes, or anything else it would have to do to be involved in this kind of work. And it shouldn't be, either. Typically, having the Federal government do something is a good way to guarantee that it won't be done the most efficient or (cost) effective way. And perhaps we're not paying bargain basement prices for our military equipment. There are some times you really don't want to just give the job to the lowest bidder. Like, when the defense of the nation is on the line. You want the engineering firms to compete on something other than price, like quality of design, track record for building airplanes properly, Let the Pentagon come up with specs for what it wants, let several companies make their proposals, and pick the best (not necessarily the cheapest) one. If we pay a premium for our satellite guided weapons delivery systems, that's fine so long as they work and save lives. If we pay a premium for the parachutes on our men's backs, that's fine as long as they work and save lives.
I never said I was happy with what my party has been doing the last two years. :D
Businesses don't vote.
I don't really think we need a huge military. We do need one, but we're spending a bit much on it. I'd prefer to give the soliers more money though, not the defense contractors.
WHAT? What, in God's name, are you talking about? Ignoring the first half of that rediculous statement for a second, don't you realise that giving money to defense contractors keeps soldiers alive? If you were a soldier would you rather have the most high tech equipment the world has ever seen, or would you rather have to just take your chances standing in front of bullets and hoping you don't get hit by one?
My annual income is $7,000.
/.
Then maybe you should be out working instead of posting socialist drivel on
It's not just that, either. There's an inherent evil in assuming that your fellow man can't get by and succeed without your "generosity". This is what really bugs me about three of the great bastions of the political left: Unions, Welfare, and Afirmative Action. They are each pretentious incarnations of the same elitist notion that "they" can't make it without "us" helping them. "They" will never be successfull or even able to scratch out a living, so we have to give them our table scraps. "They" can't get into college without us fudging their test scores or lowering the bar. "They" can't stand up to their employers unless we shepherd them through a strike. Holy festering fuck, man. How condescending do you have to be to buy into these ideals?
You know what drives conservatives to dislike welfare? It's not just that we think it's better to teach a person skills than give them money, it's also that we have ultimate faith in that person to accomplish on their own without our bloody help. It's not that we don't want "Them" in our school, it's that we know they can make it without our condescending "help" if "they" try. It's not that we want "them" to suffer at the hands of their employer with no right to organize, it's that we know if they do their best, their employers won't want to screw them over because they will be valuable assets.
I see no need to attach a politically correct disclaimer to my post in order to garner false legitimacy. I _AM_ a republican, and I _AM_ a conservative.
Law of averages says he'd probably choke to death eventualy.
For the love of God, mod that up.
Mine said something similar. Yes she did. No, I wouldn't.
I assume that the only reason this hasn't been marked "insightful" is that most people didn't get it. What a shame. Talk about hitting the nail on the head...
It still won't get you laid, though.
Yes, it uses a lot of fuel to start them and warm them up to the point where you would want to drive them, and it doesn't use all that much (relative to a 150 gallon tank) to idle them, but I don't think it takes 2000k mi worth of fuel to start them. 20 miles? Maybe. 2000? no way.
At any rate, are there really that many truckers hauling around laptops?
Yes. And they use the Internet to coordinate load pickups.
We have one a couple miles from where I live and it still has the speakers on the wires that you set on your window like tray from a drive in restaurant.
Nah. I don't think it was that confusing (or confused). Perhaps it would be easier to interpret if I said it this way:
The people who would let Red Hat come inspect them for service agreement compliance are the same people who would let Micros~1 inspect them for license compliance. Those people, myself included, who don't like that type of contract would choose a distribution other than Red Hat Advanced Server even though it is not a software license restriction, per se.
Whether it is legal for the end user to distribute the software is not in question. In cases of contradictions, the least restrictive license is generally followed. The question is whether or not it is legal for Red Hat to continue to claim they are distributing the software under the Gnu GPL. Since they are own the copyright, at least for the compilation, they are welcome to use another license, just not under this one.
This isn't a license. A license is a grant of permission by a copyright holder to use a protected work. This has no language in it that implies any sort of license other than what I posted above regarding the notice that the work is GPL licensed. This is a services subscription agreement. It does not govern your use of the software. It governs the service you seek from Red Hat.
Red Hat Advanced Server product is a bundle of software and services. If you don't want the services, you can still use the software. One of the services is to compile and package binary copies of the software. Another is to allow you access to RHN and other support channels. If you don't want the service, don't purchace a boxed copy of the software because you are paying for the whole package, software and services. When you purchace the services by purchacing the packaged product, you then have to agree to the service agreement. If you just want the software, download it from redhat.com.
Again, there is _NO_ restriction on the software. If you download the SRPMs for the software that comprises a part of the software component of Red Hat Advanced Server, this agreement would have no bearing on that software. The agreement only covers use of the Advanced Server product. One portion of that product is a software component that they can not stop you from using.
"The Software" in the agreement is not just the GPL'ed code. It's the entirety of RH AS. RH AS is a package of software and services. An installed system is a system with RH AS on it. That is, an "Installed System" consists of Linux and associated programs, plus configuration, set up, and access to support services. They have no right to govern your use of the GPL'ed code. They have every right to govern your use of the support services.
So again, if you want to compile all the RPMs and install all the components that would go into an RH AS system, but not configure or access any support services, more power to you.
And the critical question is:
Or what???
and the "Or what?" is that they will void your agreement, not take away your license to use the software. That's the key that keeps the GPL intact here. If anyone at all had ever read section 1.2 we'd be in good shape.
1.2 Termination for Breach. Red Hat may terminate this Agreement (a) in the event Customer fails to pay an invoice when due, (b) in the event Customer commits a material breach of this Agreement and fails to remedy that breach within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice of material breach, or (c) as otherwise provided in this Agreement. Customer may terminate this Agreement in the event Red Hat commits a material breach of this Agreement and fails to remedy that breach within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice of material breach.
The restriction isn't on the distribution of the software (which is what the GPL is concerned with). The restriction is on the service contract. Your service contract is valid untill you install N+1 copies. At that time the service contract is invalid. That does not restrict you from legaly installing the software. It does restrict you from seeking support services. They added zero terms that restrict the legality of the installation or distribution.
In fact, from the agreement itself:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. Subject to the trademark use limitations set forth below, Red Hat grants Customer a license in this collective work pursuant to the GNU General Public License.
When are people going to learn to read the WHOLE agreement? When are people going to stop comparing this to an MS eula? If the BSA (on MS's behalf as an appointed auditor) comes in and counts your machines and you haven't paid for enough licenses, they take you to court and threaten to to cancel your license to use the software. When RH asks you how many machines you've got and you lie to them, they will ask you to pay for support as per the support agreement or they will cancel the support agreement. They can not revoke your license to use the software. There is no conflict with the GPL because this is not a restriction on use of the software. It's a restriction on getting service from Red Hat for the software you're using. Would somebody please stop moding this crap up? It's misinformed if not patently ignorant.
This applies to the grandparent post even more with the pretentious line about sounding like a hypocrite. Perhaps the author should have read the document lest he sound like an ignorant troll.
Not the people who buy Advanced Server (to which that service agreement is attached.)
They are the very same people who slurp up MS products year after year, crappy revision after crappy revision. The folks like you and me who don't like the MS eula might switch to Linux to avoid it, but we wouldn't be choosing Red Hat Advanced Server. In any case, RH is interested in making sure you aren't trying to get them to support more machines than you have paid for since this is only a support agreement. They are not trying to prevent you from using the software which is the intent of the MS eula so I don't think the two are terribly comparable.
By clicking this link:S RPMS/
:P
http://updates.redhat.com/enterprise/2.1AS/en/os/
You're welcome.
This is utter crap spewed by someone who hasn't taken the time to read the "license", which is really nothing more than a support agreement in drag. _ALL_, that is to say, 100% of the code is GPL or other OSS license. None of the RHAT additives are closed in any way. If you want the SRPMs, download them and rpm -b them yourself. I have copies of the .iso files. They're not hard to get. Sure. Red Hat won't just hand them to you, but you don't _HAVE_ to pay for them. I'm tired of people who don't know how the GPL works misinforming others. RTFL! If they didn't hand out the source for free, Stallman would revoke their license for all the GNU stuff in a blink.