You mean their army? I don't think most of those people wanted to stop us. They just figured they had a better chance of surviving if they managed to surrender to us than if they deserted.
In any case, I'd rather die fighting for my freedom than live waving goodbye to what's left of it.
So you should be allowed to keep nuclear weapons, then?
No. But then, neither should the government. Nukes are just plain dangerous, regardless of who has them. OTOH, if it's safe for the crazy government, it's certainly safe for law-abiding citizens. (It always frightens me when people think the government is saner than ordinary citizens, btw.)
Some things are so potentially dangerous to the community that just becasue you appear to be sane now is not enough justification to allow you to play with lethal toys.
You mean like ballots? I agree. I vote we prohibit 1u3hr from ever voting again. Especially on an issue that might potentially affect me.
Re:Bill Gates is fighting the good fight against A
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
a rich corporate schmoes screwing other rich corporate schmoes out of money, BTW, which pales in comparison to helping the developing world resist the spread of HIV
Hello? Since when is getting a monopoly lock on the software industry and using that to push poorly-documented pseudo-standards instead of the real thing just `screwing other rich corporate schmoes out of money'?
As ESR pointed out a while back (sorry no link), SCO's own OS lacks the features they claim IBM stole from them. So, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell they're right, at any rate.
I didn't call voting a whim. I called the ideas expressed therein a whim.
then you are dumping the premise of democratic government. I don't want to do that.
I would feel sorry for you, except you are saying that we in the middle should be ruled by the east and left coasts. That is a position I very, very offensive. We no more care to be ruled by New York than we care to be ruled by Britain.
unless we are going to say that we no longer wish to support the idea that we have a majority system
Bingo. We don't have a majority system, and we never have. We have a mostly-majority system, with protections for the minority against tyranny (like the Senate and the Electoral College). I like it that way. If you coastals don't, I don't suppose any of us mid-westerners would mind you leaving. You certainly won't be missed:)
Once you have Texas and Florida, plus the middle states you can ignore the majority opinion for President.
Think about what `majority opinion' means, then: the opinion of the East and Left coasts. Why is it considered inherently better that we submit to their whim for president than that they submit to ours?
This is nothing like the advertising clause. The closest analogy is with the cover-texts, but those are usually minscule compared to the bulk of the work, whereas the advertising clause-mandated text could (and did) easily grow longer than the rest of the advertisement. If you have to take out a full-page ad just to satisfy the license, that's a problem. If you have to add another page to your book to satisfy the license, that's not a problem.
As for a one-page excerpt: that's covered under fair use anyway. Obviously the FDL can't touch you there.
The problem is, RMS (and therefore the FSF) believes that IP rules should be based on an examination of the technical details surrounding a particular work and their cultural/social implications. Since these details vary widely between different types of works, RMS prefers a wide variety of rules: music should be freely copiable, but not modifiable; software should be modifiable, but not distributable as binaries-only. His position on printed documentation used to be that it should be modifiable, but it doesn't matter whether it comes with source, since printing documentation from source isn't a technology that's widely available (like compiling software is).
When RMS applies his system to philosophical documents, like the GNU Manifesto, he concludes that these should not be modifiable, since that would open the door for mis-representation of the original writer's opinions. So, if he includes a philosophical/political rant in a GNU manual, he prohibits modifying that section. Debian, OTOH, believes that everything should be modifiable, so they don't approve of RMS's position w.r.t. invariant sections (which is just the FDL's term for don't-modify-this philosophical rants).
Since electrons only travel at 1/10 the speed of light
ISTR that electricity in a wire actually travels by the transmission of momentum from one electron to another, not by the movement of electrons themselves, and that this transimission take place essentially at lightspeed. So I don't think the actual speed of the electrons is an issue.
If their stuff sucks, it won't get included (or will be quickly reverted). So, only whatever positive contributions they can submit will be included. So they should help some.
I love this. After all, belief in God does help us understand those same things. I assume you prefer believing in many universes outside our universe, rather than in one God outside our universe?
Only, AFAIK if you get an RAA you can only safely reject your/latest/ hypothesis. So his reasoning would mainly reject the idea that given P1 H3 is not possible. (That's what I've learned from my introductions to logics class at any rate.)
No. That's stupid. Go research Currying and the commutativity of conjunction.
Cliff notes: RAA is based on reducing a/set/ of assumptions to a contradiction. Then, you find the assumptions that are neither provable nor consequences of assumptions you've stated at the outset, and conclude that at least one of those must be false.
Slashdot Mirror
Beg pardon? A popular uprisign against a tyrannical government constitutes `terrorism'? Why?
You mean their army? I don't think most of those people wanted to stop us. They just figured they had a better chance of surviving if they managed to surrender to us than if they deserted.
In any case, I'd rather die fighting for my freedom than live waving goodbye to what's left of it.
No. But then, neither should the government. Nukes are just plain dangerous, regardless of who has them. OTOH, if it's safe for the crazy government, it's certainly safe for law-abiding citizens. (It always frightens me when people think the government is saner than ordinary citizens, btw.)
You mean like ballots? I agree. I vote we prohibit 1u3hr from ever voting again. Especially on an issue that might potentially affect me.
Why not?
Haven't you heard? We techies are incapable of understadning legal issues.
Hello? Since when is getting a monopoly lock on the software industry and using that to push poorly-documented pseudo-standards instead of the real thing just `screwing other rich corporate schmoes out of money'?
Linus has strong opinions, yes, but he also will go to great lengths to deny that. Some people take him at his word when he says stuff like that.
Thanks for being my first bite :)
As ESR pointed out a while back (sorry no link), SCO's own OS lacks the features they claim IBM stole from them. So, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell they're right, at any rate.
No, Microsoft can't get rid of IBM; what would lead you to think they could?
If you manually type in the indicated URL at archive.org, you get an acknowledgement of Halloween I. That's all I can, do, though.
WindowsUpdate works fine under Galeon 1.2.5 (Gecko/20020623) on Debian Testing, Linux 2.4.20; why wouldn't it work on Mozilla under Windows?
I didn't call voting a whim. I called the ideas expressed therein a whim.
I would feel sorry for you, except you are saying that we in the middle should be ruled by the east and left coasts. That is a position I very, very offensive. We no more care to be ruled by New York than we care to be ruled by Britain.
Bingo. We don't have a majority system, and we never have. We have a mostly-majority system, with protections for the minority against tyranny (like the Senate and the Electoral College). I like it that way. If you coastals don't, I don't suppose any of us mid-westerners would mind you leaving. You certainly won't be missed
Think about what `majority opinion' means, then: the opinion of the East and Left coasts. Why is it considered inherently better that we submit to their whim for president than that they submit to ours?
Yeah, that's the issue. RMS believes you should use the right license for the job, whereas Debian takes more of a one-size-fits-all position.
You have fair use excerpting rights regardless of the license.
This is nothing like the advertising clause. The closest analogy is with the cover-texts, but those are usually minscule compared to the bulk of the work, whereas the advertising clause-mandated text could (and did) easily grow longer than the rest of the advertisement. If you have to take out a full-page ad just to satisfy the license, that's a problem. If you have to add another page to your book to satisfy the license, that's not a problem.
As for a one-page excerpt: that's covered under fair use anyway. Obviously the FDL can't touch you there.
The problem is, RMS (and therefore the FSF) believes that IP rules should be based on an examination of the technical details surrounding a particular work and their cultural/social implications. Since these details vary widely between different types of works, RMS prefers a wide variety of rules: music should be freely copiable, but not modifiable; software should be modifiable, but not distributable as binaries-only. His position on printed documentation used to be that it should be modifiable, but it doesn't matter whether it comes with source, since printing documentation from source isn't a technology that's widely available (like compiling software is).
When RMS applies his system to philosophical documents, like the GNU Manifesto, he concludes that these should not be modifiable, since that would open the door for mis-representation of the original writer's opinions. So, if he includes a philosophical/political rant in a GNU manual, he prohibits modifying that section. Debian, OTOH, believes that everything should be modifiable, so they don't approve of RMS's position w.r.t. invariant sections (which is just the FDL's term for don't-modify-this philosophical rants).
After he was abducted, of course. Idiot.
ISTR that electricity in a wire actually travels by the transmission of momentum from one electron to another, not by the movement of electrons themselves, and that this transimission take place essentially at lightspeed. So I don't think the actual speed of the electrons is an issue.
If their stuff sucks, it won't get included (or will be quickly reverted). So, only whatever positive contributions they can submit will be included. So they should help some.
I'm sorry; I don't follow this. It's more plausible to believe in many, many universes than in one God? Why?
I love this. After all, belief in God does help us understand those same things. I assume you prefer believing in many universes outside our universe, rather than in one God outside our universe?
No. That's stupid. Go research Currying and the commutativity of conjunction.
Cliff notes: RAA is based on reducing a