Consideration can be in a form of a promise, of value, to the other party.
When you use a GPLv2 work, you agree to a cerain set of conditions - these considitions were set out to forward a very specific purpose, in which the author explicitly chose so that he would be able to use any modifications that you make and distribute (amongst other things specified in the GPL). The value of this can be calculated in the amount of man hours that is spent on create a derivative work and putting a price on that. This forms the consideration.
This has been the case since forever. You can also apply the same priciple to GPLv3.
There is nothing wrong about constitutional monarchy. The fact that a constitutional monarchy pretty much mandates that the head of state being a different person to head of government actually brings many benefits (and is also one of the main reason many republics follow this path, they just swapped the "crown" for a "president").
The whole "debate" on the viability of the NHS is just a convenient justification for recently passed Tory-led reforms that many consider "privitisation through the back door". The increase in funding earlier on the last decade has started to show results, and heath outcomes are generally on the rise - why we are looking at another complete overhaul of NHS structure is beyond most observers.
The NHS performs quite well compared to any other system in the developed world - it also allows the UK to have the lowest cost as a percentage of GDP (in the developed world, adjusted for demographics) due to the nationalised/socialised nature of the organisation.
By the way - it's "ideals" not ideas. And from this discussion, I can deduce the following about you -
1. Your sarcasm detector is faulty or non-functioning - either by design, or purposely. 2. You can't live with youself if you don't have the last word.
The only reason why you can claim that other are using strawman arguments is because you selectively ignore the arguments people present against you. If you feel that that the only people you can get along with are the people you agree, then fine. It doesn't help your case though.
There are many arguments against a public sector which is too large - mainly dealing with the inefficiencies resulting from lack of competition and the resulting stagnation - none of which deals with the type of paranoid and dystopian fear of government you are trying to sell.
The proper (and only) way of dealing with the government acting against the interest of its citizens is through thorough transparency and unconditional accountability of government. There is no way you can really get rid of "government", other (and more corrupt) institutions fills any power vacuum left by a disintegrating publically accountable government. You should be well aware of that since you seem to be an expert in Somalia.
In the meantime, I wish you safe journey to Mogadishu. I take it you must have been there before, or maybe there now - on the ground unearthing the amazing industrial potential there.
Maybe you should heed your calling and build up Somolia into the world class economy that they deserve due to their superior libertarian ideals. May I be the first to wish you luck.
Your ability to see reality through libertarian-o-vision is truly amazing.
By your argument, Somalia must have the fastest growing economy on earth due to the lack of government intervention.
The industrialization of America is not the result of less government - (in those times America has similar amount of industrial regulation when compared to its contemporaries). It is because America at that time had lots of resources, including natural resources and labor that has not been fully developed into an industrial economy. Similar to how China is right now.
I hate to say this, but you're adding nothing to the argument. The thing we should be discussing is not whether to regulate - it is established beyond doubt in economics, especially after the events of 2007, that blind deregulation leads to extremely bad outcomes. What we need to determine is what to regulate and how to do it.
Your argument that because government regulation may lead to some bad outcomes some of the time, so shouldn't be doing it all of the time is a logical fallcy and doesn't hold water. BTW, the proper way of dealing with government tyranny is to ensure that the constitution of government is accountable to the people, not to destroy the mechanism of government.
Um.. did it ever cross you mind that the weathy has a responsibility to ensure that the society which is has benifitted from immensely is sustained?
There is a moral argument for providing a social safety net (and by extension a working universal healthcare system), and then there is a practical one - a country where the majority of it citizens is not able to sustain a minimium living standard will be prone to widespread civil unrest.
May I remind you that there were a time when government was small - social cohesion was usually maintained by force - and the living standards of the many were squalid. Are you seriously adovcating the return to those times (just so we can compete with China on cheap labor)?
Actually, they will say "bottle" much closer to a west country accent than to any American one. Both RP and Standard American has had many changes in phonology compared to early modern English (which is about the time when colonization of America started).
Every institution is sub-optimal. Doesn't mean that you should villify it. The framework of science eventually weeds out the bad - because they can't stand scrutiny.
Whereas in a market, a company bankrupt of money fails eventually, whereas in scient, an idea bankrupt of evidence fails eventually.
Yes it is if you can develop a realistic model. Which is the main point of climate research.
Verification can also be done on the dataset and hwo the data set was collected and analyzed. Just because we don't have another earth under our control to test our theories on, doesn't mean we can do valid scientific research on the climate.
I find it hard to believe we are still discussing this point when many other countries with much better worker protections that the US are still able to maintain a strong manufacturing sector. Places like Germany, Switzerland, France and Japan, where manufacturing workers get a livable wage, *and* also have healthcare.
Maybe we should be looking at our system, and why it is failing. From my point of view this is because 1) unfettered free trade has high external cost that is not internalized. For example, worker and environmental protectiosn are much lower in developing countries. These products will be cheaper just by this fact, before labor costs are factored in. 2) Too much focus on short-term profitability. For short-term boost to the bottom line, many companies are willing to start up operations in China (or make other questionable move), many of which require a joint-venture with a local company. This results in the inevitable loss competitive advantage of these companies, not to their immediate competitors, but to a new wave of competitors - look at how high-speed rail technology, for example, is being bought pennies on the dollar from foreign firms. This results in lower profitability in the long term.
The developed economies that are doing well, do so avoiding these issues by producing high-value goods, which are for most part heavily automated. However, as you can see with the high-speed rail example above, this model has its limits.
1 is easy to fix - not by import duties, but to ensure that the way imported goods are made is equivalent to the general restrictions of a developed country. There can even be standards similar to how RoHS is implemented.
2 is much harder to fix. Lassiez faire market theory has failed us - no the question is whether common sense or monied interests will prevail.
Japan, Germany, Switzerland and France has strong manufactoring sectors. In fact, heavily automated manufacturing for things such as electronics is only slightly more expensive than the type of labor intensive manufacturing that we see in places like China. The problem is the high capital outlay for this equipment which no-one wants to front. It's not a problem while cheap labor is in plentiful supply.
Actually it's because they fear that Science destroys faith - in other words blasphemy.
And, it's not a recent development. No matter if the early scientists really did belive in God - those that want to maintain the status quo (and in extension their power and influence) will always brand them as heretics, as has been the case throughout history.
Why it's become more prevalent in recent years? Ever heard of talk radio, or cable news? A certain segment of the population like to be reinforced of their pre-existing bias, which makes them even more susceptable to sensationalism. It's comforting, in a way, to them but ultimately tragic to society.
My whole point is that the issue isn't about policy. That bad government policy will result is not a justification for the rejection of scientific conclusions. In fact, it is already a fallacy to assume that government intervention is always bad.
The sad fact is that - as you said - these people made up their minds long ago. Instead of approacing the question with an open mind, they are projecting their own bias onto reality, without adjusting their bias according to facts.
It's not like we dont' understand them - I think pretty much everybody do. It's just that we can't comprehend why seemingly intelligent people can be so closed minded.
Actually, MS never had a monopoly in the server space and really has nothing to worry about in terms of anti-trust investigations. Outside of corporate IT (which itself is undergoing a huge transformation due to BYOD), corporate IT spawned app/web development (.NET/ASP), and gaming (which itself is debatable due to the looming death of dedicated gaming devices and the rise of smartphones and tablets), MS has no real momentum in software platforms.
You (and the GP) missed the point by a mile. This isn't about funding, it's about accepting (and having trust in) the output of scientific research and the conlusions drawn up by them.
Science is not a reliogion. It is the difference between trusting and believing - as in some people believe what is written in a 1600 year old book, but doesn't trust their contemporaries distilling the truth of our physical realm. Really, a sad state.
This is nothing to do with the constitutional monarcy that the UK has, and everything to do with where to draw the line between freedom of speech, and incitement of violence.
Also, you may find a course constitutional law interesting. The United Kingdom has common legal and political roots with the US - read up on the English bill of rights (that was passed 100 years before the US bill of rights), for example.
Slashdot Mirror
On no.... Not this again.....
Consideration can be in a form of a promise, of value, to the other party.
When you use a GPLv2 work, you agree to a cerain set of conditions - these considitions were set out to forward a very specific purpose, in which the author explicitly chose so that he would be able to use any modifications that you make and distribute (amongst other things specified in the GPL). The value of this can be calculated in the amount of man hours that is spent on create a derivative work and putting a price on that. This forms the consideration.
This has been the case since forever. You can also apply the same priciple to GPLv3.
There is nothing wrong about constitutional monarchy. The fact that a constitutional monarchy pretty much mandates that the head of state being a different person to head of government actually brings many benefits (and is also one of the main reason many republics follow this path, they just swapped the "crown" for a "president").
Evil enablers - think about it this way - is a single evil doer more evil, or is a evil enable that encourages 100 people do evil, more evil?
Actually, a much more secure version of this is https://ezcrypt.it/ with which the decryption key can also be further encrypted with a password.
3 examples... Compared to all the favorable material to MS coming out of Gartner, I think you just proved GP's point.
Think BSOD.. It only takes one day of lost work to form a lasting impression of quality associated with a company..
"I can guide my parents over the phone to do it in Windows"
Your doctor can guide you to perform minor surgery over the phone as well, whether you want to do that - that's another matter...
The whole "debate" on the viability of the NHS is just a convenient justification for recently passed Tory-led reforms that many consider "privitisation through the back door". The increase in funding earlier on the last decade has started to show results, and heath outcomes are generally on the rise - why we are looking at another complete overhaul of NHS structure is beyond most observers.
The NHS performs quite well compared to any other system in the developed world - it also allows the UK to have the lowest cost as a percentage of GDP (in the developed world, adjusted for demographics) due to the nationalised/socialised nature of the organisation.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Surveys/2011/Nov/2011-International-Survey.aspx
By the way - it's "ideals" not ideas. And from this discussion, I can deduce the following about you -
1. Your sarcasm detector is faulty or non-functioning - either by design, or purposely.
2. You can't live with youself if you don't have the last word.
Come on, prove me wrong.
The only reason why you can claim that other are using strawman arguments is because you selectively ignore the arguments people present against you. If you feel that that the only people you can get along with are the people you agree, then fine. It doesn't help your case though.
There are many arguments against a public sector which is too large - mainly dealing with the inefficiencies resulting from lack of competition and the resulting stagnation - none of which deals with the type of paranoid and dystopian fear of government you are trying to sell.
The proper (and only) way of dealing with the government acting against the interest of its citizens is through thorough transparency and unconditional accountability of government. There is no way you can really get rid of "government", other (and more corrupt) institutions fills any power vacuum left by a disintegrating publically accountable government. You should be well aware of that since you seem to be an expert in Somalia.
In the meantime, I wish you safe journey to Mogadishu. I take it you must have been there before, or maybe there now - on the ground unearthing the amazing industrial potential there.
Maybe you should heed your calling and build up Somolia into the world class economy that they deserve due to their superior libertarian ideals. May I be the first to wish you luck.
Your ability to see reality through libertarian-o-vision is truly amazing.
By your argument, Somalia must have the fastest growing economy on earth due to the lack of government intervention.
The industrialization of America is not the result of less government - (in those times America has similar amount of industrial regulation when compared to its contemporaries). It is because America at that time had lots of resources, including natural resources and labor that has not been fully developed into an industrial economy. Similar to how China is right now.
I hate to say this, but you're adding nothing to the argument. The thing we should be discussing is not whether to regulate - it is established beyond doubt in economics, especially after the events of 2007, that blind deregulation leads to extremely bad outcomes. What we need to determine is what to regulate and how to do it.
Your argument that because government regulation may lead to some bad outcomes some of the time, so shouldn't be doing it all of the time is a logical fallcy and doesn't hold water. BTW, the proper way of dealing with government tyranny is to ensure that the constitution of government is accountable to the people, not to destroy the mechanism of government.
Um.. did it ever cross you mind that the weathy has a responsibility to ensure that the society which is has benifitted from immensely is sustained?
There is a moral argument for providing a social safety net (and by extension a working universal healthcare system), and then there is a practical one - a country where the majority of it citizens is not able to sustain a minimium living standard will be prone to widespread civil unrest.
May I remind you that there were a time when government was small - social cohesion was usually maintained by force - and the living standards of the many were squalid. Are you seriously adovcating the return to those times (just so we can compete with China on cheap labor)?
Actually, they will say "bottle" much closer to a west country accent than to any American one. Both RP and Standard American has had many changes in phonology compared to early modern English (which is about the time when colonization of America started).
Every institution is sub-optimal. Doesn't mean that you should villify it. The framework of science eventually weeds out the bad - because they can't stand scrutiny.
Whereas in a market, a company bankrupt of money fails eventually, whereas in scient, an idea bankrupt of evidence fails eventually.
Yes it is if you can develop a realistic model. Which is the main point of climate research.
Verification can also be done on the dataset and hwo the data set was collected and analyzed. Just because we don't have another earth under our control to test our theories on, doesn't mean we can do valid scientific research on the climate.
I find it hard to believe we are still discussing this point when many other countries with much better worker protections that the US are still able to maintain a strong manufacturing sector. Places like Germany, Switzerland, France and Japan, where manufacturing workers get a livable wage, *and* also have healthcare.
Maybe we should be looking at our system, and why it is failing. From my point of view this is because 1) unfettered free trade has high external cost that is not internalized. For example, worker and environmental protectiosn are much lower in developing countries. These products will be cheaper just by this fact, before labor costs are factored in. 2) Too much focus on short-term profitability. For short-term boost to the bottom line, many companies are willing to start up operations in China (or make other questionable move), many of which require a joint-venture with a local company. This results in the inevitable loss competitive advantage of these companies, not to their immediate competitors, but to a new wave of competitors - look at how high-speed rail technology, for example, is being bought pennies on the dollar from foreign firms. This results in lower profitability in the long term.
The developed economies that are doing well, do so avoiding these issues by producing high-value goods, which are for most part heavily automated. However, as you can see with the high-speed rail example above, this model has its limits.
1 is easy to fix - not by import duties, but to ensure that the way imported goods are made is equivalent to the general restrictions of a developed country. There can even be standards similar to how RoHS is implemented.
2 is much harder to fix. Lassiez faire market theory has failed us - no the question is whether common sense or monied interests will prevail.
How can this drivel be modded insightful?
Japan, Germany, Switzerland and France has strong manufactoring sectors. In fact, heavily automated manufacturing for things such as electronics is only slightly more expensive than the type of labor intensive manufacturing that we see in places like China. The problem is the high capital outlay for this equipment which no-one wants to front. It's not a problem while cheap labor is in plentiful supply.
Actually it's because they fear that Science destroys faith - in other words blasphemy.
And, it's not a recent development. No matter if the early scientists really did belive in God - those that want to maintain the status quo (and in extension their power and influence) will always brand them as heretics, as has been the case throughout history.
Why it's become more prevalent in recent years? Ever heard of talk radio, or cable news? A certain segment of the population like to be reinforced of their pre-existing bias, which makes them even more susceptable to sensationalism. It's comforting, in a way, to them but ultimately tragic to society.
My whole point is that the issue isn't about policy. That bad government policy will result is not a justification for the rejection of scientific conclusions. In fact, it is already a fallacy to assume that government intervention is always bad.
The sad fact is that - as you said - these people made up their minds long ago. Instead of approacing the question with an open mind, they are projecting their own bias onto reality, without adjusting their bias according to facts.
It's not like we dont' understand them - I think pretty much everybody do. It's just that we can't comprehend why seemingly intelligent people can be so closed minded.
Yet, they can't come up with any competing scientific theory that gains traction. Maybe the problem isn't the technocrats then is it?
Actually, MS never had a monopoly in the server space and really has nothing to worry about in terms of anti-trust investigations. Outside of corporate IT (which itself is undergoing a huge transformation due to BYOD), corporate IT spawned app/web development (.NET/ASP), and gaming (which itself is debatable due to the looming death of dedicated gaming devices and the rise of smartphones and tablets), MS has no real momentum in software platforms.
You (and the GP) missed the point by a mile. This isn't about funding, it's about accepting (and having trust in) the output of scientific research and the conlusions drawn up by them.
Science is not a reliogion. It is the difference between trusting and believing - as in some people believe what is written in a 1600 year old book, but doesn't trust their contemporaries distilling the truth of our physical realm. Really, a sad state.
This is nothing to do with the constitutional monarcy that the UK has, and everything to do with where to draw the line between freedom of speech, and incitement of violence.
Also, you may find a course constitutional law interesting. The United Kingdom has common legal and political roots with the US - read up on the English bill of rights (that was passed 100 years before the US bill of rights), for example.
I thought your comment was sarcasm, but then I read the first post off of your blog and realized that it wasn't.