Hong Kong Island and Kowloon was annexed in 1841 and 1869, respectively. The new territories was under a lease that required it to be returned in 1997. The british could just return the NT, at the risk of spliting HK in two and also infuriating the communist party.
BTW, China is not a communist country, at least not anymore. It is becoming more and more of a fascist state.
Senators and ec votes were not originally intended to be on the ballox box. That representation was originally intended for state legislatures, although the states can do anything with those votes. Eventually all of them decided to put them up for the popular vote.
No.. The framers didn't think ordinary folks would be good voters for president. It also allowed the states more power in letting them choose the head of the nation.
The W2K user security model is extremely weak. It's default normal (power) users permissions to allow installation of programs contributes to the problem.
However, the main culprit is the single login problem with W2K. You don't have multiple virtual consoles and multiple X sessions as with *nix. That means the users who normally use a restricted account needs to logout and login as Administrator. It is a fucking pain the ass to do this. That's why unix has su. MIcrosoft's answer is to allow power users to install programs, which is a very bad design decision.
Please don't compare current issues regarding IP to theory that stretch back to the industrial revolution. The key point here is tangible and intangible goods and services. Besides, RMS is not forcing you to become part of his movement. He doesn't even want people like you. If he did he would of become ESR. Hey, did you know that Free Software requires freely avaiable source code too, duh! The Free Software Definition and Open Source Definition both require souce availabilty.
Anyways, when you buy a box of cereal, it is tangible, you can eat it. When you go to the hair salon, they cut your hair, and that is an intangible service. However, when you buy software which category does it fall into?
It doesn't fall into any. However, software is just a collection of bits and bytes, just as a book is a collection of words and spaces. Books and printed material and are covered under copyright law. So should software be covered under that same umbrella?
You are arguing yes, because in a free market, a person should be able to make money off you own work. You have your point, it is the 'easiest' wasy to make money. RMS is arguing no, because when you copyright a collection of bits and bytes, and you enforce the copyright to gather royalties and what may you, you are essentially depriving other to use the same order the bits and bytes in the same fashion. RMS has a point that goes beyond creating value and earning a living, that's why it is the GNU philosohy.
I can't say I agree with RMS, but he has a point. Software is pure virtual goods. A book is a semi-virtual good, since the main value of the product is its physical components combined with its virtual component (what they call IP).
Pure virtual goods didn't really exist 150 years ago. The world is changing. Virtual goods create expotential value to society. Every time someone makes a copy (for the small cost of the electricity and depriciation to your computer) of software, the value it provide is multiplied, while the cost is virtually unchanged. Physical goods have a linear model. You always have utility compared to the cost of producing the unit, and this margin stays almostconstant if units were produced in a meaningful number.
Right now IP laws are allowing software makers to sell software as a tangible, physical object. So books have been doing this for centuries, what new?
First thing is that books on paper have a significant physical component. The second thing is much more significant, the distinction between source and binary code.
Source and binary code is essentially the same, but humans would need to take an large amount of time to just understand a small amount of binary code. Source code normally allows for higher level parsing of the instructions issued to the computer.
We can use a modified version of the car analogy. A program that has it's source closed is a car that has its hood so tight you need to pry it open, and after that all the components are labeled in encrypted glyphs that only the dealer knows howto(and can legally) service. A program that includes source code is like a car that has a open hood, and has clearly labeled part and uses standard components that you can service anywhere.
Clearly, with books you don't need to compile any words or sentences. You have a piece of work written in a common language. Copyright can protect that. But software without source code is creating a black box. You cannot ever know what is going on inside it.
That's an abuse of the system. There is something called accountability. Businesses need to keep detailed accounts for tax and legal purposes. This may be big government intervention, but it is a neccessity since businesses have to operated on a fair playing field. We need to combat fraud and what have you. The free market isn't a perfect system, unlike some people would like you to believe.
RMS maybe on one extreme of the spectrum, but you have to see where he is coming from. Source code should be open and reviewed by all. That's one major difference between patents and copyrights. With patents, you need to describe the mechanism in detail, since the inner workings are not obvious. Copyright didn't have this problem since all the works at the time were written, and is open for review. Now copyright has been extended to include binaries. It was not meant for such a system, there is no review at all, you have no idea what the code you are running is actually doing, everything is virtual.
If insisting you have to distriute source can ensure our long term freedom, that's a noble goal worth pursuing for. When you factor in that maybe copyright should never have covered binary code at all, then you can get a better picture of why RMS is defendable, even if a little extreme.
If you actually researched what you implied, Gore did much more than just being there at the right time. In fact he was a strong advocate of bills that ultimately lead to the internet boom in the 90's. This was when he was still a senator.
If you took his "took the inititive in creating the internet" spin, you wouldn't of know it. But in fact he was talking about his achievements as a senator, and even Vint Cerf has credited him as the politian that helped created the internet as we know it now.
The reason why the KDE team is engulfed in this flame war is mostly due to their denial in the licensing matter.
The KDE team, having chosen a license (GPL) should abide by the terms of the license. They should accept the most common interpretation of the license. If they did not agree with the GPL (or the common interpretation thereof), THEY SHOULD NOT OF CHOSEN IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. They could of went and licensed the code KPL for all that matters.
The KDE team chose to play this game at the beginning. If they want out, they have to retroactively change the license (or add exceptions to the license) to all KDE releases.
Precedent setting incidents such as these are what lawyers like to pick on in the courtroom. When the GPL has to be inforced in court one day, we want to provide a consistant interpreation of the GPL. The GPL cannot be everything to everyone. If it is, it will be unenforcable in court.
P.S. Tried the new KDE 2.0 beta and I think it is awesome. However, it is the KDE developers actions in public that tend to turn me away. I don't know why some are in arms about the GNOME Foundation press clips, they have said nothing negative about KDE. I didn't see them Gnomers complaining when Borland decided to create Kylix using Qt. Futhermore, the whole licensing issue is a pain. Why don't they just acknowledge that there is a problem (at least in some people's mind), and add exception to all the code that links to non-GPLed Qt (KDE 1.x distributions).
I'm not sure I prefer a big mac to a few well baked escargots or some well made sushi.
The problem is, it's much easier to find a McD's joint than to find a good french or jap resturant.
McD's will never make fine food, because they don't care about it. There not in it to make good food. There in it to make a buck out of consistant american man-feed.
Apply that analogy to the record companies and you get it.
It takes way too much ingenuity to produce quality music. So they just go ahead and figure out something that nobody dislikes and promote the hell out of it.
Have you ever though that nsync sounds just like the bs boys and just like bspears and ca? Well, those stuff are written and produced by the same small group of people. DUH!
The reason people listen to fucking nsync is not because their music is good. It's because the labels pay the media to play the living shit out of their songs.
Man do you think those nsync vs bs boys shit on MTV is for real? They are fucking paid for by some "independant" promotion company.
If you link to programs tha the GPL prohibits, you are not allowed to distribute the GPL program. You can link to the proprietary program however much you want, but you would not be able to distribute it (or any changes that made you do it) under the GPL. That is what the GPL claims, and does restrict.
Copyright does not only limit distribution, it gives both the author and the reader/user specific rights and responsibilities. Attribution is one of them, there are more.
Anyhow, it is very sad to see people so accustomed to property rights that now we can apply "ownership" to ideas. It doesn't work that way and it wasn't supposed to. Copyright and patents were created to encourage publishing and dissemination of information, not to hinder it, as it does in the digital age. That's why we need real copyright reform, not just brainless hacks like the DMCA.
The reason why copyright is needed is because once an owner publishes something and distributes it, the work technically no longer belongs to him, himself. If you want to own the work, you have to keep it to yourself. However, copyright allows certain rights to exist even after you publish information, in hopes that it allows people to publish information by giving them say on distribution and attribution of the said work.
Maybe you should learn Esperanto and stop writing in English. After all, with the quirky nature of English and all those gramatical exceptions, you wouldn't want to go back to English would you?:)
With a large percentage of the world's chip production in TW, do you seriously think the US would let something like that happen?
The perception that the US is trying to give is that of neutrality. Behind the scenes, you can bet your ass that there are unseen forces at work.
The communist regime is that of fear. Just because they say they can invade Taiwan, doesn't mean that they want to do it. They know full well that if they did do it, no-one would be on their side.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually most of the asian population here is from Hong Kong.
Sleek and efficient since all the uglyness is on the server.
Just what we need.
Hong Kong Island and Kowloon was annexed in 1841 and 1869, respectively. The new territories was under a lease that required it to be returned in 1997. The british could just return the NT, at the risk of spliting HK in two and also infuriating the communist party.
BTW, China is not a communist country, at least not anymore. It is becoming more and more of a fascist state.
You won't. For $99 cdn (about 60 US) you'd get a 4 bit subnet. (16 IP, 13 usable)
Senators and ec votes were not originally intended to be on the ballox box. That representation was originally intended for state legislatures, although the states can do anything with those votes. Eventually all of them decided to put them up for the popular vote.
No.. The framers didn't think ordinary folks would be good voters for president. It also allowed the states more power in letting them choose the head of the nation.
The W2K user security model is extremely weak. It's default normal (power) users permissions to allow installation of programs contributes to the problem.
However, the main culprit is the single login problem with W2K. You don't have multiple virtual consoles and multiple X sessions as with *nix. That means the users who normally use a restricted account needs to logout and login as Administrator. It is a fucking pain the ass to do this. That's why unix has su. MIcrosoft's answer is to allow power users to install programs, which is a very bad design decision.
Please don't compare current issues regarding IP to theory that stretch back to the industrial revolution. The key point here is tangible and intangible goods and services. Besides, RMS is not forcing you to become part of his movement. He doesn't even want people like you. If he did he would of become ESR. Hey, did you know that Free Software requires freely avaiable source code too, duh! The Free Software Definition and Open Source Definition both require souce availabilty.
Anyways, when you buy a box of cereal, it is tangible, you can eat it. When you go to the hair salon, they cut your hair, and that is an intangible service. However, when you buy software which category does it fall into?
It doesn't fall into any. However, software is just a collection of bits and bytes, just as a book is a collection of words and spaces. Books and printed material and are covered under copyright law. So should software be covered under that same umbrella?
You are arguing yes, because in a free market, a person should be able to make money off you own work. You have your point, it is the 'easiest' wasy to make money. RMS is arguing no, because when you copyright a collection of bits and bytes, and you enforce the copyright to gather royalties and what may you, you are essentially depriving other to use the same order the bits and bytes in the same fashion. RMS has a point that goes beyond creating value and earning a living, that's why it is the GNU philosohy.
I can't say I agree with RMS, but he has a point. Software is pure virtual goods. A book is a semi-virtual good, since the main value of the product is its physical components combined with its virtual component (what they call IP).
Pure virtual goods didn't really exist 150 years ago. The world is changing. Virtual goods create expotential value to society. Every time someone makes a copy (for the small cost of the electricity and depriciation to your computer) of software, the value it provide is multiplied, while the cost is virtually unchanged. Physical goods have a linear model. You always have utility compared to the cost of producing the unit, and this margin stays almostconstant if units were produced in a meaningful number.
Right now IP laws are allowing software makers to sell software as a tangible, physical object. So books have been doing this for centuries, what new?
First thing is that books on paper have a significant physical component. The second thing is much more significant, the distinction between source and binary code.
Source and binary code is essentially the same, but humans would need to take an large amount of time to just understand a small amount of binary code. Source code normally allows for higher level parsing of the instructions issued to the computer.
We can use a modified version of the car analogy. A program that has it's source closed is a car that has its hood so tight you need to pry it open, and after that all the components are labeled in encrypted glyphs that only the dealer knows howto(and can legally) service. A program that includes source code is like a car that has a open hood, and has clearly labeled part and uses standard components that you can service anywhere.
Clearly, with books you don't need to compile any words or sentences. You have a piece of work written in a common language. Copyright can protect that. But software without source code is creating a black box. You cannot ever know what is going on inside it.
That's an abuse of the system. There is something called accountability. Businesses need to keep detailed accounts for tax and legal purposes. This may be big government intervention, but it is a neccessity since businesses have to operated on a fair playing field. We need to combat fraud and what have you. The free market isn't a perfect system, unlike some people would like you to believe.
RMS maybe on one extreme of the spectrum, but you have to see where he is coming from. Source code should be open and reviewed by all. That's one major difference between patents and copyrights. With patents, you need to describe the mechanism in detail, since the inner workings are not obvious. Copyright didn't have this problem since all the works at the time were written, and is open for review. Now copyright has been extended to include binaries. It was not meant for such a system, there is no review at all, you have no idea what the code you are running is actually doing, everything is virtual.
If insisting you have to distriute source can ensure our long term freedom, that's a noble goal worth pursuing for. When you factor in that maybe copyright should never have covered binary code at all, then you can get a better picture of why RMS is defendable, even if a little extreme.
If you actually researched what you implied, Gore did much more than just being there at the right time. In fact he was a strong advocate of bills that ultimately lead to the internet boom in the 90's. This was when he was still a senator. If you took his "took the inititive in creating the internet" spin, you wouldn't of know it. But in fact he was talking about his achievements as a senator, and even Vint Cerf has credited him as the politian that helped created the internet as we know it now.
The reason why the KDE team is engulfed in this flame war is mostly due to their denial in the licensing matter.
The KDE team, having chosen a license (GPL) should abide by the terms of the license. They should accept the most common interpretation of the license. If they did not agree with the GPL (or the common interpretation thereof), THEY SHOULD NOT OF CHOSEN IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. They could of went and licensed the code KPL for all that matters.
The KDE team chose to play this game at the beginning. If they want out, they have to retroactively change the license (or add exceptions to the license) to all KDE releases.
Precedent setting incidents such as these are what lawyers like to pick on in the courtroom. When the GPL has to be inforced in court one day, we want to provide a consistant interpreation of the GPL. The GPL cannot be everything to everyone. If it is, it will be unenforcable in court.
P.S. Tried the new KDE 2.0 beta and I think it is awesome. However, it is the KDE developers actions in public that tend to turn me away. I don't know why some are in arms about the GNOME Foundation press clips, they have said nothing negative about KDE. I didn't see them Gnomers complaining when Borland decided to create Kylix using Qt. Futhermore, the whole licensing issue is a pain. Why don't they just acknowledge that there is a problem (at least in some people's mind), and add exception to all the code that links to non-GPLed Qt (KDE 1.x distributions).
Unless you create separate root DNs for each subdomain, you'd have a flat namespace for all of your domain.
Of course, no one is stopping you from using a system like hesiod.
Yes, if the whole sales department was axed because the dot.company is running out of capital. ha ha :)
BTW, think of how many programmers in developing countries $10k USD can feed.
Ok OPEC is not a cartel, it's just a loose (non-profit) federation of oil producing nations right?
I'm not sure I prefer a big mac to a few well baked escargots or some well made sushi.
The problem is, it's much easier to find a McD's joint than to find a good french or jap resturant.
McD's will never make fine food, because they don't care about it. There not in it to make good food. There in it to make a buck out of consistant american man-feed.
Apply that analogy to the record companies and you get it.
It takes way too much ingenuity to produce quality music. So they just go ahead and figure out something that nobody dislikes and promote the hell out of it.
Have you ever though that nsync sounds just like the bs boys and just like bspears and ca? Well, those stuff are written and produced by the same small group of people. DUH!
The reason people listen to fucking nsync is not because their music is good. It's because the labels pay the media to play the living shit out of their songs.
Man do you think those nsync vs bs boys shit on MTV is for real? They are fucking paid for by some "independant" promotion company.
"Only problem with Vancouver is you're competing with a few thousand PhD people who ran over here from Hong Kong"
:)
That's just not true.
You just said that because we got the best ski slopes in North America.
Simple! Think b4 u rant. (oxymoron) :)
If you link to programs tha the GPL prohibits, you are not allowed to distribute the GPL program. You can link to the proprietary program however much you want, but you would not be able to distribute it (or any changes that made you do it) under the GPL. That is what the GPL claims, and does restrict.
Anarchism != no structure
Libertarianism = less structure
Anarchism = *new* structure (flexible)
Libertarianism = freedom from regulation
Anarchism = freedom from oppression
> I think it is time for an IPO.
Very obviously this is a troll. Why didn't any mods catch up on this?
Yeah those mp3 from that site really rocks!! I'd trade this on napster over the metalica anyday!.
I don't believe you
They have discussed this possibility on their website and on mailing lists. maybe you should read up on it
You have no idea what you are talking about. Most of what you see as Berlin today is actually Fresco merged with corbra.
They chose to complete the basic infrastructure before they go and improve the appearance of the widget set. Read the website.
Copyright does not only limit distribution, it gives both the author and the reader/user specific rights and responsibilities. Attribution is one of them, there are more.
Anyhow, it is very sad to see people so accustomed to property rights that now we can apply "ownership" to ideas. It doesn't work that way and it wasn't supposed to. Copyright and patents were created to encourage publishing and dissemination of information, not to hinder it, as it does in the digital age. That's why we need real copyright reform, not just brainless hacks like the DMCA.
The reason why copyright is needed is because once an owner publishes something and distributes it, the work technically no longer belongs to him, himself. If you want to own the work, you have to keep it to yourself. However, copyright allows certain rights to exist even after you publish information, in hopes that it allows people to publish information by giving them say on distribution and attribution of the said work.
Maybe you should learn Esperanto and stop writing in English. After all, with the quirky nature of English and all those gramatical exceptions, you wouldn't want to go back to English would you? :)
With a large percentage of the world's chip production in TW, do you seriously think the US would let something like that happen?
The perception that the US is trying to give is that of neutrality. Behind the scenes, you can bet your ass that there are unseen forces at work.
The communist regime is that of fear. Just because they say they can invade Taiwan, doesn't mean that they want to do it. They know full well that if they did do it, no-one would be on their side.