fairness and justice will only be reached when 3 of those seats are mandated to be filled by African-Americans, and 3 are reserved for Hispanic Americans.
If this is a joke, nice one.
If you're serious, then.... you are an idiot.. Women make up 50% of the population. Blacks make up about 12%. Yet you want blacks to get 3x as many board seats than women? If you're an SJW, you really should brush up on your math skills.
Hispanics are approaching 50% of the population of California, and yet your math still does not reflect this... 1 board member (who represents 50% of the population) who is a woman. 3 board members (who represent 50% of the population) with 3 board members...
Your fucked up list should have specified 3 women, 3 Hispanics, and 1 black if you really wanted to reflect gender/national origin ratios.
Abandon California? That's actually not a bad idea. The costs to incorporate in NV and maintain "headquarters" there would be fairly trivial. Since the laws regarding things like Corporate Organizing and Board Member Eligibility are governed by the state of incorporation, these companies could legally tell the state, and its stupid laws, to go fuck itself.
In fact, this law can only affect companies incorporated in California.
It's been making steady progress on the Top 500 too.. The last two non-Linux machines dropped off the list a short while ago (two AIX (if memory serves) supercomputers that were retired)
Haters (not you) always gotta hate.. I think Linus has done a pretty damn good job. His OS (or variants thereof) is the most used OSes on Earth... Give him his props..
Now if the kernel legal team was doing its job, there would be some sort of agreement that if your code IS accepted you assign the rights to them thereby carving out a special niche just for them.
When you give someone a birthday present or any other kind of gift, do you make them sign anything? Do you think the courts would be so unreasonable as to let people rescind gifts because there wasn't paperwork? C'mon....... The courts have held up verbal contracts too, so no, something doesn't HAVE to be in writing.. It helps, but it's not a requirement.
Habitat for Humanity builds individual homes for individual families. Not "the many".
You are saying their number one mission isn't to build houses for people, it's actually to cater to the feelings of the special people who may take offense or not and thereby dictate the world's activity and all of human communication. After making sure feelings aren't hurt, Habitat for Humanity may be allowed time for their secondary pursuit, building houses for people.
And not just Habitat for Humanity. Everyone else must also solicit the feelings of the special people first. Above loyalty, above kindness, above fairness, above ethics, above truth, above science and reason, above anything useful or practical or valuable or good in any way, at the very top of everything: the feelings of the special people matter most of all.
Why is it you think that this is somehow unreasonable? HfH is a charity organization. They solicit money to do their good deeds... I have no idea what the ethnic or racial make-up of their donor base is, but I'm sure it's somewhat varied.. If you're a large donor and you head out to the job site to see how your money is being spent, you probably aren't going to want to hear someone using racial slurs regarding your race/religion/nationality..
The "special people" you reference are the donors, the laborers, and anyone else involved in the actual process of building/funding the houses. Yeah, no shit you don't piss them off. They leave and you build NO houses..
Rule #1: Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
This is a rule that's almost as old as time..
We've gone way off topic here, but sometimes it just amazes me that some folks act like reality is somehow... unreasonable..
I get that concern.. but, what's the alternative? China? There have been plenty of reports of them forcing manufacturers to put in backdoors in the hardware...
At this point it seems to be impossible to purchase anything for a computer that hasn't been altered to permit spying..
I remember an interview with Torvalds where he basically confirmed that he had been approached by the NSA to put a backdoor in Linux..
Cheap? The 500 most expensive and powerful supercomputers on the planet run Linux.. Linux has a 100% market share of those machines... So no, not all Linux users are cheap.. Linux users actually purchase and use machines that cost hundreds of millions of dollars each.. What's your big contribution? $2K? oooooh.. slow down big spender....
Who cares what percentage of the desktop it has? The Linux project is, and will remain, viable for the foreseeable future. If System76 thinks there is a market for US assembled Linux computers, why does it concern you if they give it a go? Their experiment will cost you nothing...
While it is true that desktop sales are slowing, it's not a huge drop off.. They aren't going from 100,000,000 units to nothing.. The change from 2017 to 2018 was 97 million to 94 million units.. (Laptop sales actually increased during the same time frame)
Linux also has a, roughly, 55% share of the internet server market... So yeah.. it's a viable OS.
If someone is in prison, how is "kicked out" functionally different than "not kicked out"?
I chose the extreme to find a point we could work back from.
If someone contributes code with a back door or otherwise intentionally sabotages the code, or threatens or commits physical violence against others on the project, that would be reasonable to kick them out and keep their code.
Well, there you go.. You just set the bar. A few comments ago it appeared that you were implying there was no bar. Clearly that is not the case. You have chosen a height for you bar. Mine differs, but at least we've gotten to this point.
Where would you set the bar? How do you decide if someone has been kicked out reasonably or unreasonably?
Don’t kick them out. Unless you are willing to give up using their code.
You do realize that is untenable right? You are asking any organization to see into the future. There has to be a bar.. I don't know where it is, but I suspect that we'd both agree that high crimes (rape, murder, arson, etc) would be reasonable... You still think that if someone was kicked out for that then their code should be returned?
It is you who is being unethical.. Code is DONATED.
If you donate your car (not lend) to some church (for example) the courts have already ruled that you CANNOT demand it be returned unless you can show fraud or coercion.
If you donated your car to a Mormon church (because you are a Mormon) and later find out that it's really a bunch of Satanists who tricked you.. Sure.. Fraud..
But just because you changed your mind? Sorry, the courts say no.
That's a lot of talk to justify treating people badly after they contributed to a project, and keeping their contributions so you can benefit from them while you treat them badly.
Why do you want to treat people badly? Why are you trying to find ways to avoid consequences for treating people badly?
If you want to keep someone's contributions, then exercise tolerance towards them. If you won't tolerate them, don't use their work against their wishes.
No no no... I did a more detailed rebuttal elsewhere, but it's your idea that is wrong.
Where do you set the bar? Your argument always assumes the person being kicked out of the project is non-culpable... What if he/she is culpable? What happens if someone has been donating code for 10 years and then one day they launch into some tirade about those damn "racial slur here"...
If asked to leave the project do they really get to demand that 10 years of code has to be returned? Why?
The courts seem to disagree.. Gifts are gifts.. You can't take them back unless you were the victim of fraud, coercion, or unreasonable influence.
Can you imaging the mess it would create if anyone could, at any time, take back a gift?
It's far more unreasonable for a person to say "give me back everything" rather than "you all suck, I'm not helping anymore, don't call me, I hope you choke on my code" and then to walk away..
Where would you set the bar? How do you decide if someone has been kicked out reasonably or unreasonably?
What’s being discussed again? Kicking out and ostracizing someone and keeping their contributed code, against their wishes? You guys really think that's a moral or ethical thing to do?
If you don’t want someone included, you don't get to benefit from their contributions either. If you want to benefit from their contributions, then get off your high horse and exercise some tolerance.
The right to ostracize someone and keep and continue benefitting from their volunteered work is not something an ethical person would fight for.
I've been thinking about this and trying to find a reasonable analogy. Best I can come up with is this:
Habitat for Humanity (the folks who build homes for poor people).. When you work with HfH, you donate your time, skill, and labor. When you donate code to the Linux kernel, you are donating your time, skill, and labor.
Now, assume one day one of the HfH guys comes to the jobsite and launches into a rant about xyz.. We don't have to specify what xyz is, only that it's something horribly offensive...
Said person is kicked off the job site and asked to never return to HfH... Does he have the right to expect that all of the houses he helped to build will be pulled down? Why or why not? He's gone but someone is still benefiting from his work.
Where do you set the bar for demanding that your time, skill, and labor be returned to you? I haven't invested a whole bunch of time in this as it doesn't directly concern me (I am not a kernel contributor or a HfH person), but from what I can tell, the courts would disagree with the notion of "taking your toys and going home".
Code contributed to the kernel certainly fits the idea of a "donation". As far as I know, nobody is paid for their contributions (they might be paid to work on the kernel by a third party, but Linus isn't cutting any checks). From what I can deduce, case law has decided that gifts are nonrescindable unless you can show fraud, coercion, or that you were "strongly influenced in an unfair manner".
Furthermore, in both situations we have donations of time, labor, and skill.. Nothing "tangible"..i.e. nobody is keeping something "physical" that is going to deprive you of "x"
I don't believe, personally, that it would be immoral or unethical to keep the code and kick the person out. When the code was contributed both the donator and donee were acting in good faith. If the situation changes and the parties part ways, then that's the end of their association, but you don't get to rewrite history and time and say "I want my shit back".
Physics declares you cannot get your time, labor, or skill back (entropy increases) so demanding that your gifts be ripped from the code tree won't make anyone "whole" even if you could show some unfairness (short of fraud).
I had to go back and do a double take.. Where the heck do you get that the WIPO is a private organization?
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is one of the 15 specialized agencies of the United Nations (UN).
WIPO currently has 191 member states, administers 26 international treaties, and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.
WIPO was formally created by the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, which entered into force on 26 April 1970.
Not only is the WIPO part of a treaty organization, it was, itself, created by treaty. The Constitution forbids any judge in any state from interfering with it. It declares treaties to be the supreme law of the land.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So, I'll ask again... What regular court do you suggest this family goes to, where they won't be laughed out of the building?
Uh.. No...c'mon.. It's a part of the United Nations... The UN was formed by treaty...
2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Constitution is pretty clear that no judge can interfere with treaties, period..
The Obama family's net worth was $1.3M in 2007 and $24M last year. This is not much by private sector standards
Right there.... Assuming that is fact, and I'm willing to assume that.... You are a hypocrite.. $24M is not much by private sector standards? Are you high? That's the top 0.1%.
No more debating with you. I don't debate hypocrites..
Except, they weren't domain squatters... it was a local, family-run PC repair and Small Business IT support company that had their legit domain stolen.
Why do you keep repeating this lie? It's been stated several times before that ALL they had was a website.. There was no functioning business.
big corporations with expensive lawyers cant steal my bitcoin
Care to share what you've been smoking? Ask that Silk Road guy how much bitcoin the government was able to get from him.... (Hint: The answer isn't zero).
I don't know what's more delusional... Your faith in bitcoin or your belief that the government can't take your bitcoins if it decides it wants them.
Good luck to the Packer's.. Case law and Federal law make a distinction between companies that have the same/similar trademarks but are not engaged in similar business.
Slashdot Mirror
fairness and justice will only be reached when 3 of those seats are mandated to be filled by African-Americans, and 3 are reserved for Hispanic Americans.
If this is a joke, nice one.
If you're serious, then.... you are an idiot.. Women make up 50% of the population. Blacks make up about 12%. Yet you want blacks to get 3x as many board seats than women? If you're an SJW, you really should brush up on your math skills.
Hispanics are approaching 50% of the population of California, and yet your math still does not reflect this... 1 board member (who represents 50% of the population) who is a woman. 3 board members (who represent 50% of the population) with 3 board members...
Your fucked up list should have specified 3 women, 3 Hispanics, and 1 black if you really wanted to reflect gender/national origin ratios.
Are you one of those new board members? Lemme guess, you're grumpy because you're on your period.
Abandon California? That's actually not a bad idea. The costs to incorporate in NV and maintain "headquarters" there would be fairly trivial. Since the laws regarding things like Corporate Organizing and Board Member Eligibility are governed by the state of incorporation, these companies could legally tell the state, and its stupid laws, to go fuck itself.
In fact, this law can only affect companies incorporated in California.
Who even told you, that you can speak?
Why did you, put a comma, there?
How did you manage to misspell and spell correctly the same word in the same sentence?
It's been making steady progress on the Top 500 too.. The last two non-Linux machines dropped off the list a short while ago (two AIX (if memory serves) supercomputers that were retired)
Haters (not you) always gotta hate.. I think Linus has done a pretty damn good job. His OS (or variants thereof) is the most used OSes on Earth... Give him his props..
Now if the kernel legal team was doing its job, there would be some sort of agreement that if your code IS accepted you assign the rights to them thereby carving out a special niche just for them.
When you give someone a birthday present or any other kind of gift, do you make them sign anything? Do you think the courts would be so unreasonable as to let people rescind gifts because there wasn't paperwork? C'mon....... The courts have held up verbal contracts too, so no, something doesn't HAVE to be in writing.. It helps, but it's not a requirement.
Habitat for Humanity builds individual homes for individual families. Not "the many".
You are saying their number one mission isn't to build houses for people, it's actually to cater to the feelings of the special people who may take offense or not and thereby dictate the world's activity and all of human communication. After making sure feelings aren't hurt, Habitat for Humanity may be allowed time for their secondary pursuit, building houses for people.
And not just Habitat for Humanity. Everyone else must also solicit the feelings of the special people first. Above loyalty, above kindness, above fairness, above ethics, above truth, above science and reason, above anything useful or practical or valuable or good in any way, at the very top of everything: the feelings of the special people matter most of all.
Why is it you think that this is somehow unreasonable? HfH is a charity organization. They solicit money to do their good deeds... I have no idea what the ethnic or racial make-up of their donor base is, but I'm sure it's somewhat varied.. If you're a large donor and you head out to the job site to see how your money is being spent, you probably aren't going to want to hear someone using racial slurs regarding your race/religion/nationality..
The "special people" you reference are the donors, the laborers, and anyone else involved in the actual process of building/funding the houses. Yeah, no shit you don't piss them off. They leave and you build NO houses..
Rule #1: Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
This is a rule that's almost as old as time..
We've gone way off topic here, but sometimes it just amazes me that some folks act like reality is somehow... unreasonable..
I get that concern.. but, what's the alternative? China? There have been plenty of reports of them forcing manufacturers to put in backdoors in the hardware...
At this point it seems to be impossible to purchase anything for a computer that hasn't been altered to permit spying..
I remember an interview with Torvalds where he basically confirmed that he had been approached by the NSA to put a backdoor in Linux..
Cheap? The 500 most expensive and powerful supercomputers on the planet run Linux.. Linux has a 100% market share of those machines... So no, not all Linux users are cheap.. Linux users actually purchase and use machines that cost hundreds of millions of dollars each.. What's your big contribution? $2K? oooooh.. slow down big spender....
Who cares what percentage of the desktop it has? The Linux project is, and will remain, viable for the foreseeable future. If System76 thinks there is a market for US assembled Linux computers, why does it concern you if they give it a go? Their experiment will cost you nothing...
While it is true that desktop sales are slowing, it's not a huge drop off.. They aren't going from 100,000,000 units to nothing.. The change from 2017 to 2018 was 97 million to 94 million units.. (Laptop sales actually increased during the same time frame)
Linux also has a, roughly, 55% share of the internet server market... So yeah.. it's a viable OS.
If someone is in prison, how is "kicked out" functionally different than "not kicked out"?
I chose the extreme to find a point we could work back from.
If someone contributes code with a back door or otherwise intentionally sabotages the code, or threatens or commits physical violence against others on the project, that would be reasonable to kick them out and keep their code.
Well, there you go.. You just set the bar. A few comments ago it appeared that you were implying there was no bar. Clearly that is not the case. You have chosen a height for you bar. Mine differs, but at least we've gotten to this point.
Where would you set the bar? How do you decide if someone has been kicked out reasonably or unreasonably?
Don’t kick them out. Unless you are willing to give up using their code.
You do realize that is untenable right? You are asking any organization to see into the future. There has to be a bar.. I don't know where it is, but I suspect that we'd both agree that high crimes (rape, murder, arson, etc) would be reasonable... You still think that if someone was kicked out for that then their code should be returned?
It is you who is being unethical.. Code is DONATED.
If you donate your car (not lend) to some church (for example) the courts have already ruled that you CANNOT demand it be returned unless you can show fraud or coercion.
If you donated your car to a Mormon church (because you are a Mormon) and later find out that it's really a bunch of Satanists who tricked you.. Sure.. Fraud..
But just because you changed your mind? Sorry, the courts say no.
It isn't ethical to demand your shit back when you change your mind..
That's a lot of talk to justify treating people badly after they contributed to a project, and keeping their contributions so you can benefit from them while you treat them badly.
Why do you want to treat people badly? Why are you trying to find ways to avoid consequences for treating people badly?
If you want to keep someone's contributions, then exercise tolerance towards them. If you won't tolerate them, don't use their work against their wishes.
No no no... I did a more detailed rebuttal elsewhere, but it's your idea that is wrong.
Where do you set the bar? Your argument always assumes the person being kicked out of the project is non-culpable...
What if he/she is culpable? What happens if someone has been donating code for 10 years and then one day they launch into some tirade about those damn "racial slur here"...
If asked to leave the project do they really get to demand that 10 years of code has to be returned? Why?
The courts seem to disagree.. Gifts are gifts.. You can't take them back unless you were the victim of fraud, coercion, or unreasonable influence.
Can you imaging the mess it would create if anyone could, at any time, take back a gift?
It's far more unreasonable for a person to say "give me back everything" rather than "you all suck, I'm not helping anymore, don't call me, I hope you choke on my code" and then to walk away..
Where would you set the bar? How do you decide if someone has been kicked out reasonably or unreasonably?
What’s being discussed again? Kicking out and ostracizing someone and keeping their contributed code, against their wishes? You guys really think that's a moral or ethical thing to do?
If you don’t want someone included, you don't get to benefit from their contributions either. If you want to benefit from their contributions, then get off your high horse and exercise some tolerance.
The right to ostracize someone and keep and continue benefitting from their volunteered work is not something an ethical person would fight for.
I've been thinking about this and trying to find a reasonable analogy. Best I can come up with is this:
Habitat for Humanity (the folks who build homes for poor people).. When you work with HfH, you donate your time, skill, and labor. When you donate code to the Linux kernel, you are donating your time, skill, and labor.
Now, assume one day one of the HfH guys comes to the jobsite and launches into a rant about xyz.. We don't have to specify what xyz is, only that it's something horribly offensive...
Said person is kicked off the job site and asked to never return to HfH... Does he have the right to expect that all of the houses he helped to build will be pulled down?
Why or why not?
He's gone but someone is still benefiting from his work.
Where do you set the bar for demanding that your time, skill, and labor be returned to you?
I haven't invested a whole bunch of time in this as it doesn't directly concern me (I am not a kernel contributor or a HfH person), but from what I can tell, the courts would disagree with the notion of "taking your toys and going home".
Code contributed to the kernel certainly fits the idea of a "donation". As far as I know, nobody is paid for their contributions (they might be paid to work on the kernel by a third party, but Linus isn't cutting any checks). From what I can deduce, case law has decided that gifts are nonrescindable unless you can show fraud, coercion, or that you were "strongly influenced in an unfair manner".
Furthermore, in both situations we have donations of time, labor, and skill.. Nothing "tangible"..i.e. nobody is keeping something "physical" that is going to deprive you of "x"
I don't believe, personally, that it would be immoral or unethical to keep the code and kick the person out. When the code was contributed both the donator and donee were acting in good faith.
If the situation changes and the parties part ways, then that's the end of their association, but you don't get to rewrite history and time and say "I want my shit back".
Physics declares you cannot get your time, labor, or skill back (entropy increases) so demanding that your gifts be ripped from the code tree won't make anyone "whole" even if you could show some unfairness (short of fraud).
Your analogy is stupid. Women are humans, code is text. If you want to make an analogy at least make a reasonable one.
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is one of the 15 specialized agencies of the United Nations (UN).
WIPO currently has 191 member states, administers 26 international treaties, and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.
WIPO was formally created by the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, which entered into force on 26 April 1970.
Not only is the WIPO part of a treaty organization, it was, itself, created by treaty. The Constitution forbids any judge in any state from interfering with it. It declares treaties to be the supreme law of the land.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So, I'll ask again... What regular court do you suggest this family goes to, where they won't be laughed out of the building?
Uh.. No...c'mon.. It's a part of the United Nations... The UN was formed by treaty...
2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Constitution is pretty clear that no judge can interfere with treaties, period..
Fucking with 52% of the world is a dumb move you simple country faggots lol.
Would that be the same 52% that doesn't like guns?
Yeah, that's terrifying..
The Obama family's net worth was $1.3M in 2007 and $24M last year. This is not much by private sector standards
Right there.... Assuming that is fact, and I'm willing to assume that.... You are a hypocrite.. $24M is not much by private sector standards? Are you high? That's the top 0.1%.
No more debating with you. I don't debate hypocrites..
Except, they weren't domain squatters... it was a local, family-run PC repair and Small Business IT support company that had their legit domain stolen.
Why do you keep repeating this lie? It's been stated several times before that ALL they had was a website.. There was no functioning business.
What is it with you people and reality?
big corporations with expensive lawyers cant steal my bitcoin
Care to share what you've been smoking? Ask that Silk Road guy how much bitcoin the government was able to get from him.... (Hint: The answer isn't zero).
I don't know what's more delusional... Your faith in bitcoin or your belief that the government can't take your bitcoins if it decides it wants them.
Good luck to the Packer's.. Case law and Federal law make a distinction between companies that have the same/similar trademarks but are not engaged in similar business.
e.g, Apple Computers and Apple Music (Beatles).
What "regular" court can overrule the WIPO?
I'll wait while you try to think of one.....