China is now a capitalist country, and this book is a product of that economy. It's the details that make sweeping generalities harder to take seriously. If the government controls all media, what was the point of this book?
Learn more about everyday life in China. China changes more every couple of years than most Western countries change in a decade.
Kent Beck's "Extreme Programming Explained"
is the first book to read -- and the first
in the excellent Addison Wesley series.
Also see http://www.extremeprogramming.org/
Where did this myth come from? Back it up
or stop spreading slander.
Where did RMS say that "you should be required by law to make your software free?"
That would indeed be unreasonable,
but I've never seen such a statement
after reading RMS over a decade.
He will not use proprietary
software, and he would like
to see it go away. He won't let you
use HIS code unless you play by the
same rules. That's a long
way from wanting to outlaw proprietary code.
I might criticize your beliefs, but
does that mean I'm infringing on your
freedom of speech? No, I'm exercising my
own free speech.
What percentage of GPL code do you estimate has been developed with tax dollars? Why does
this have anything to do with individual
programmers who choose the GPL as their terms of
use? Microsoft sells technology developed
with tax dollars, and I don't have a right
to see or resell any of it.
Some corporations release their own code under the GPL specifically to prevent rivals from extending that software with hidden features and competing with the original product. The company that releases code under the GPL still owns the copyright and can release under any other licenses for a fee, or can continue to sell enhanced non-GPL versions. (They cannot un-GPL enhancements that outsiders have added to their GPL
version. They only have full rights to their own
code.)
Software has a history of eventually making old technology free. Few pay money for a quicksort or a fast-Fourier transform anymore. When enough programmers know how to produce the same functionality,
it no longer makes sense to sell it as
a rare commodity.
You can resell your used copy of a book when you
done with it. You cannot resell your Windows
CDROM, even if you reformat your hard disk.
Software licenses presume you have made an illegal
photocopy of the book to keep. (Who wants
to reread THAT book anyway?)
There are thousands of programmers
who could write this virus. All it takes is one.
You can discourage 9999 out of 10,000,
but you can't expect 100% cooperation from
the entire world.
Protecting servers is more realistic
than eliminating every potential outlaw.
Bruce Schneier wrote in Applied Cryptography (p. 258): "If you could store one gigabyte of information on a drive weighing one gram, then
a list of just the 512-bit primes would weigh
so much that it would exceed the Chandrasekhar limit and collapse into a black hole..."
The License of Python 1.6b1 and later versions:
This is a free software license but is incompatible with the GNU GPL. The primary incompatibility is that this Python license is governed by the laws of the "State" of Virginia in the USA, and the GPL does not permit this.
One of the design goals of Cobol was that it be
readable by non-programmers, so that one's PHB
could review the code. Obviously they were ahead
of the curve back then.
I love it! You've deflated the undogmatic voice of relativism perfectly.
RMS lets morality guide his decisions and
encourages others to do the same.
Why do so many find that behavior subversive?
What are they afraid of?
What is RMS taking away from others, except
complacency? He assumes that ethical
decisions are not such a luxury, or even
particularly difficult. Maybe we're missing
opportunities every day. Maybe we just have
to think through our own personal standards.
We could decline propositions that make us uneasy.
We could offer counter-proposals that seem more just. Why not do the right thing for a change?
Maybe we could get away with it. Maybe we could
even feel proud of it.
By the way, when did you master that frightening discourse?
Reagan allowed S&L's essentially to loan money to themselves. This guaranteed a conflict of interest. They gave themselves low interest loans for high risk projects when no other sensible lender would do so. Small investers thought the S&L's were relatively safe. Why? Because of government regulation! Only the rules had changed. Again, we're lucky the S&L's collapsed earlier rather than later. They were accumulating massive liabilities for projects that were never expected to have any real return. The construction companies nevertheless consumed a great deal of loot. The money did not just disappear. It was merely redistributed away from the investers of the S&L's, so that not even bankruptcy could retrieve it.
You would prefer to see a banking system
where small investers are never protected?
Protecting small investors was a fundamental goal of S&L's in the first place. Construction companies did not need S&L's to obtain ordinary high-interest loans from bankers would would insist on collateral and reasonable business plans. They needed S&L's
to obtain low-interest, federally insured loans,
without any accountability or regulation of their business plans. That's the magic of deregulation, Reagan-style: i.e. corporate welfare should come with no strings attached.
A tax law change by your favorite scapegoats
may have triggered the meltdown, but the situation was already inherently unstable. The new owners of S&L's had little reason to minimize risk -- vastly overbuilding cities like Dallas, long after the demand for new construction had disappeared. They could make money building houses for long-horned steers. Pyramid schemes always collapse sooner or later. We're better off that it wasn't five years later.
Your alternative to an elected representative government is a corporate mafia. Power abhores a vacuum. This generation has not yet learned that the only way to keep America free is to limit the power of money.
In the 80's S&L's were allowed for the first time to loan money for an investment in which they also
owned a share. In other words, they could loan
money to themselves. So what happened? Real estate companies bought S&L's and no longer had to justify their loans. They borrowed money from small investors who thought they had goverment protection. The construction companies made money as contractors to themselves, let the S&L's reposess the unwanted property, and the government bailed them out. What a fine scam in the name of "getting government off the backs of business."
Speaking of S&L's, Neal Bush stole a billion dollars from the Denver economy, and his entire family wet their beaks.
Slashdot Mirror
If you let corporations pay for the campaign,
then you will pay for the payback a thousand-fold.
Learn more about everyday life in China. China changes more every couple of years than most Western countries change in a decade.
Kent Beck's "Extreme Programming Explained" is the first book to read -- and the first in the excellent Addison Wesley series. Also see http://www.extremeprogramming.org/
Where did RMS say that "you should be required by law to make your software free?" That would indeed be unreasonable, but I've never seen such a statement after reading RMS over a decade. He will not use proprietary software, and he would like to see it go away. He won't let you use HIS code unless you play by the same rules. That's a long way from wanting to outlaw proprietary code.
I might criticize your beliefs, but does that mean I'm infringing on your freedom of speech? No, I'm exercising my own free speech.
Remember the Pink Hello Kitty Laptop?
http://www.exonome.com/fj/phkl/
Faux fur is ideal, don't you think?
Some corporations release their own code under the GPL specifically to prevent rivals from extending that software with hidden features and competing with the original product. The company that releases code under the GPL still owns the copyright and can release under any other licenses for a fee, or can continue to sell enhanced non-GPL versions. (They cannot un-GPL enhancements that outsiders have added to their GPL version. They only have full rights to their own code.)
Software has a history of eventually making old technology free. Few pay money for a quicksort or a fast-Fourier transform anymore. When enough programmers know how to produce the same functionality, it no longer makes sense to sell it as a rare commodity.
You can resell your used copy of a book when you done with it. You cannot resell your Windows CDROM, even if you reformat your hard disk. Software licenses presume you have made an illegal photocopy of the book to keep. (Who wants to reread THAT book anyway?)
So they'll have to modify the name. Let's hope it isn't too awful.
How about this? http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=MSFT&d=c&k=c1&a=v&p=s &t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l
If you apply service pack 2 last to Windows 2000, it removes the protection of some previous patches.
There are thousands of programmers who could write this virus. All it takes is one. You can discourage 9999 out of 10,000, but you can't expect 100% cooperation from the entire world. Protecting servers is more realistic than eliminating every potential outlaw.
Rosa Parks was supported as a test case by civil rights groups after her arrest. Her original defiance of the law was entirely spontaneous.
Bruce Schneier wrote in Applied Cryptography (p. 258): "If you could store one gigabyte of information on a drive weighing one gram, then a list of just the 512-bit primes would weigh so much that it would exceed the Chandrasekhar limit and collapse into a black hole..."
I believe the mandatory click-through license agreement was considered incompatible.
One of the design goals of Cobol was that it be readable by non-programmers, so that one's PHB could review the code. Obviously they were ahead of the curve back then.
If you're using slashdot, you're using free software.
RMS lets morality guide his decisions and encourages others to do the same. Why do so many find that behavior subversive? What are they afraid of? What is RMS taking away from others, except complacency? He assumes that ethical decisions are not such a luxury, or even particularly difficult. Maybe we're missing opportunities every day. Maybe we just have to think through our own personal standards. We could decline propositions that make us uneasy. We could offer counter-proposals that seem more just. Why not do the right thing for a change? Maybe we could get away with it. Maybe we could even feel proud of it.
By the way, when did you master that frightening discourse?
Reagan allowed S&L's essentially to loan money to themselves. This guaranteed a conflict of interest. They gave themselves low interest loans for high risk projects when no other sensible lender would do so. Small investers thought the S&L's were relatively safe. Why? Because of government regulation! Only the rules had changed. Again, we're lucky the S&L's collapsed earlier rather than later. They were accumulating massive liabilities for projects that were never expected to have any real return. The construction companies nevertheless consumed a great deal of loot. The money did not just disappear. It was merely redistributed away from the investers of the S&L's, so that not even bankruptcy could retrieve it.
A tax law change by your favorite scapegoats may have triggered the meltdown, but the situation was already inherently unstable. The new owners of S&L's had little reason to minimize risk -- vastly overbuilding cities like Dallas, long after the demand for new construction had disappeared. They could make money building houses for long-horned steers. Pyramid schemes always collapse sooner or later. We're better off that it wasn't five years later.
The following essay provides more reasons why the choice does matter, without speaking approvingly of either candidate: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20001016&s=ea lterman
Your alternative to an elected representative government is a corporate mafia. Power abhores a vacuum. This generation has not yet learned that the only way to keep America free is to limit the power of money.
Speaking of S&L's, Neal Bush stole a billion dollars from the Denver economy, and his entire family wet their beaks.
Many large corporations, including Microsoft and Cisco, pay no taxes whatsoever: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/14017.html
About half our current budget is for Defense.
Is this reasonable?