You obviously don't play games, compile things, encode media, etc.
Yeah, obviously, if you only do wordprocessing and web browsing you're not going to notice the difference. Those are not the only uses for a computer.
I personally, max out my athlon's cpu load all the time, playing games, compiling things, using the autospellchecker in gaim:), etc.
It seems to me, that saying "code is design" is a lot like saying "the code is the documentation." Yeah, in a sense it's true, but code by itself is crappy documentation. The same for design. Code to display a JPEG is not a JPEG specfication. You may be able to figure out a partial JPEG spec from code to display them, but that doesn't make it a specfication. You need a design before you start writing code. That way you know if your code does what it's supposed to.
If you plan to do a good job on a complex project, coding is engineering. You don't just sit down and start coding a database/compiler/opeating system you think about it first. You consider things like: "This operation is O(n^2) can it be made O(NlogN) and if so what is the tradeoff?" "How fast does this program have to run? Is that feasible?" "Are these data structures efficient?"
People actually go to engineering schools to get degrees in Computer Science for a reason. Knowing how to write good code, is not the same thing as knowing how to write in some particular language. It requires an understanding of what goes on inside a computer. You need to understand things. A good programmer knows that a floating point division by 2 is much slower that a shift right by two and will use that knowledge. Computer Science is a type of engineering.
According to an economics textbook, in perfect competition, a company makes zero economic profit. Economic profit is different than accounting profit. Economic profit is accounting profit minus the opportunity cost of the next best thing the person/copmany could be doing. Companies do not report economic profit on their balance sheets. They report accounting profit. Accounting profit is what's at issue here.
If your textbook doesn't explain this, it's probably not a very good textbook.
The concept of economic profit is pretty interesting though. In this case, the movie studio is claiming to have made no accouting profit. This would make their economic profit negative, meaning that the company would have been better off doing something else with it's resources. This is obviously not the case, given the huge success of the movie.
What I imagine they'll do is just reinvest all their profit in the company. Since all the studio people people own stock in the company, they'll still make (theoretical) money because their stock value will rise.
There may still be a legal case here. At a whole company accouting scale they may be able to just reinvest the profit back in to the comapany, but if one looks at just a single picture, then you make be able to prove they made a profit. If they can't prove that all their "expenses" are tied to the picture, then they may not be able to figure them in when they calulated how much money the picture made.
Actually, by the Patriot Act, hacking IS an act of terrorism. I forget the exact wording of it, but any attempt to gain access to a government computer system is considered a act of terrorism.
Just because it a law doesn't make it right.
Or as someone once said: Ignorance is no excuse for the law.
As do I.
Tiny linux distros work great for do simple tasks with hardware that would otherwise sit in your closet.
I use an old P100 with a couple network cards in it as my router.
It works great:
coyote# uptime 03:29:25 up 19 Days (463h), load average: 0.00 0.00 0.00
Yeah, whatever. I don't HAVE to register to read slashdot.
I registered with/. because I get messages when someone replies to my comments. The only way to do this is to have a user id.
There's no reason you make me register just to read a news story unless they're selling the information. Free depends on how you look at things. Marketing data is worth money, you must give it to them to read their stories, therefore they aren't exactly free. I refuse to register with the NYT because I don't want to encourage what I consider annoying behavior. If I had to register with every site I look at, I would have to spend half my web browsing time registering for sites, many of which I would never visit again.
There are plenty of other places to get news that don't make you jump through silly hoops just to access a story. The BBC being the best example. They have a much better registration policy than the NYT, none.
You only have to register with them if you're actually getting an individualized service, like email.
A news site can have adds without making me login. And how can you be sure they don't know who you are? I would bet they keep track of IPs. It's not an insurmountable tast to find out who has a given IP address. I'm not trying to be overly paranoid here. I'm just trying to be realistic about how much data they have about you.
Keeping track of registration info is a pain in the ass. Yeah, they can put it in a cookie, but I'm a college student. I don't use one computer. I'll stop by a computer lab around lunchtime, and I don't want to deal registering every time. I already have a crapload of passwords to remember for things that actually need them to function. I'm not about to start remebering logins for 50 different sites just becuase they all want my marketing data.
Hey, Google doesn't make me login to do a search. They seem to be doing just fine. And there's no way I would use Google is they did. Even if they tell me that they don't sell records of what I search for, it doesn't matter. Most privacy policies are total b.s. Often they have a clause which allows them to be changed at any time, sometimes without any notification. That's why I keep track of what info I acutally give out on the web. Then, I don't have to trust them. I know my info is safe because I never gave it to them in the first place. I know that I'm not going to get spam from them because I never gave them my email address.
If you can move your mouse to a precision of 700nm, I'm very impressed:-)
I know I guy who could probably do this.
He's a neurobiology professor.
He says he used to be able to hold his hand steady to within one wavelength of light. I haven't seen it but, I bet it would be pretty impressive to watch. Of couse, without a nice microscope, you might as well not watch at all:)
You aren't really being fair here. $50 will only cover one license. You have to multiply that $50 by the number of machines it needs to be installed on.
If you need to intstall this software on a mere 20 computers, you're already talking $1000.
If some it guy has to muck around compiling something for a few hours, that time will still work out to less than $1000.
Now let's say you decide you need to watermark thing like you said: What a shame, but the version of the software you bought doesn't support watermarking. You're either SOL or you have to buy the new version/professional version/different program. You left out this money too.
I'm not trying to claim that OSS is always the cheapest way to go, just don't forget that companies almost always need more than one copy of a program. This needs to be figured into the cost.
Self powered hubs, those that are plugged into the wall or on the back of a machine give you 5v at up to 500 mA. 2.5 Watts.
Bus powered hubs, those that get their power from USB provide 5v at 100 mA. For a grand total of 1 Watt.
It could take quite a bit of time to recharge at that rate.
A NiMH AAA rechargeable batt. is about 600 mAh.
It would only take a little more than and hour to recharge, and around 6 through a non-powered hub.
First, I'm going to skip everything but your last question. Then, I'm going to answer: I can't.
There's never going to be one static set of laws that all people agree with and live under. Another poster wrote $100M. I think that's a little high, but it would still be a lot better than what we have right now. If I had to pick myself, I would say $20M.
There's no single answer to the question "when is it okay to kill someone" yet the laws of our society provide this answer (at least legally). At some point people debated it, and then wrote some laws. I don't claim that they're perfect, but I think they're better than not having any.
I'm really curious as to what number you would pick. I don't want to tell you why too much property it too much either. What number would you pick today, given you own personal thoughts about property rights?
As far as the morality stuff, whatever. Both being gay and being a rapist/murderer and against Catholicism/Bible-beltism/whatever, but that doesn't make them the same. Someone being gay doesn't interfere with my rights, someone raping/murdering me does. See the difference?
I agree that the intent is different. It's just my opinion that intent shouldn't matter. (obviusly not the judge's in the decss case)
Take the google example, chances are someone there has though at the fact that their search engine indexes some things that are illegal. one might even be able to find an internal email on the subject. With that email, one could allege that since they know some of the things they index are illegal and didn't do anything about it, they willfully aided copyright infringement. One could make this argument, but I don't think one could win. But it gives and example of why I think intent should not matter.
I think arguing over intent is silly. It should be either okay to link to something or illegal. Anything else leaves too much ambiguity.
I understand the state the law is in currently, I just think it's a lousy state to be in.
All the computers that data goes through to get to you on the internet have a "functional role" is publishing everything you read. Not a huge one but it's there. It's just my opinion that the buck should stop with the person who is actually hosting the data. Google will give me links to the DeCSS code if I want them, but it would be ridiculous and very bad for the internet to hold them responsible for it. It would as be trivial for me to trick Google into linking to my site when it didn't have the DeCSS code and the adding it after it gets indexed. I could even just block their ip range from accessing that file, so they couldn't tell if they were linking to something illegal or not. You can see how quickly it would become nearly impossible to make sure you were following the law.
I am also very sad to tell you that different people get treated differently, so chances are you would get a diffrent treatment than 2600 did. You might care to note that this site : http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/ is still up.
As far as intent goes, I don't like the idea of a "thought crime" at all. If the guys at 2600 don't like copyright law, that should be their choice. They have to follow copyright law, but they should be able to speak out against it, as well as point out its idiocy in certain cases.
Look up what a sociopath is actually read my post and then reply. The words actually have meanings, they aren't just bolded or unbolded text. They form sentences. These express ideas. You should respond to those. Instead you spend most of your post talking about all the various groups you've chosen to spend you life hating.
You should educate yourself. Not everyone who disagrres with you is a fundamentalist Christian. If you've adopted fifty starving children from Africa, then that's a good thing, but I doubt you have. Either way it doesn't matter.
If people give you shit because you're gay, that's lame. You being gay doesn't interfere with my life and I don't really care if you're gay or not. It doesn't tie into this argument at all.
I don't really care how you live your life if it doesn't affect me. If you own all the widgets, it does affect me. I can't get any because you have them all, and some for some types of widgets there is a fixed supply (ex: land). It's just the simple truth. I challenge you do disprove it. Not to criticize my choice of the word widget, or fling embarassing labels around, but to actually read, comprehend and then respond. If you get that far think about how you would fix this? Can you think of a better way to keep someone from owning too many widgets or are you dead set on believing that no one can ever have too much?
Slashdot did not link to any warez. It is Slashdot's policy that all posts are owned by their posters. Slashdot cannot and should not stop you from posting a link to kiddie porn in your next comment. But, since you own the comment, you might expect a knock on your door if you do.
A link is a link. Period. It's a shame some judges can't understand that. If you post a link to something on someone else's site, you can't stop them from putting kiddie porn in that location. You would think that a person such as yourself, who's website is what it is would understand that. All it would take for you go to go to jail is one little slip up right? Just post one illegal thing that someone doesn't like and your done.
BEGIN RANT
Law about links are idiotic. Yeah you could check every link on your site once every five minutes to make sure they don't point to anything illegal, but that's just stupid.
This is why the current kiddie porn laws are stupid in the first place. All you need is a little bit of kiddie porn, email it to someone, and call the cops. Them having downloaded those images to their PC even if they put them right in their trash folder is enough to convict them. They still have the images on their pc and tha's all the law requires. It's ridiculous.
END RANT
Regular VNC does the password lockout thing as well. I once wrote a pearl script to test this, as I had a machine running VNC sitting right on the net and didn't want it to get owned.
If you're going to be insulting, expect it right back. And yes, that's right I'm challenging your morality of lack thereof. Having a social conscience is not equivalent to being a fundamentalist Christian. May you should go back to high school. You could probably learn a lot.
Your entire post is BS. The first sentence is an insult. All it does is make you look bad. The second equates two things that are not the same. You might also care to notice that I said 'I [] have a social conscience'. I didn't say anything about yours. I was showing what a fool you were to think that the only reason to think as I do is class envy. I have clearly shown this since you're no longer claiming it. Your concept or morality appears to be ludicrously warped, since you think caring about others around you makes you a fundamentalist Christian. With the ability to make these ridiculous jumps in (un)logic there's no wonder you're a libertarian. Caring about other human beings is actually a good thing. Sorry if this concept is foreign to you, since that would make you a scumbag and textbook sociopath.
Two words: class envy. It's getting so old and so tired, yet it will probably never ever go away. Class envy my ass. I just have something called a social conscience.
what in the hell does someone having a billion dollars have to do with democracy working? Yeah, because money has no influence in politics. Are you really this clueless?
What are you some kind of greedy ratbastard?;)
At some point your ridiculous wealth becomes unfair to everone else. Why do you need a gold-plated Ferrari for every day of the month?
I think you point out the ididiocy of your own agrument. Some amounts of money are just obscene for one person to have. For one person to have 10 billion dollars is just nonsensical and stupid.
Why do you have to give money to the government at all? For the good of society, so that we can have things like roads and schools. You seem to have no concern for other people. You act like it's your god-given right to own as much as you want. Don't you think there should be a limit? What if some other greedy ratbastard beats you to owning everything? Doesn't that interfere with your nonsensical right?
Yes, we all have rights, but they only extend so far.
Let me just say, damn I wish I was in your tax bracket. And no I don't feel sorry for you at all. People need to pay taxes so we have things like roads and schools.
I hate monopolies, I love competition. Certain types of price fixing is a crime. Criminals suck. The gov't is not a bunch of criminals for taking your money. They are doing things that benefit society with that money. Ever drive on a public road?
You tax rate is prorably so high because your income is high and whatever country you live in was wise enopugh to institute some sort of progressive tax system. If you don't like having a gov't you should find a place where you can live among fellow anarchists. You can grow your own food and carry a gun everwhere you go, while watching you standard of living go to shit.
I personally believe that at some level of income, the tax rate for individuals should become 100%. No one person should have a billion dollars, it's impossible for a democaracy to exist when people do. The economy would still function just fine under this system, since indiviuals could still pool their money by creating corporations.
So how exactly do your statements show that OpenBSD wouldn't be more secure if it was GPL'ed?
The point is: "what license promotes security the best" What OS is currently most secure, may or may not be under that license.
BTW, I would probably agree with you about OpenBSD's security.
Actually if you look at www.xboxmediaplayer.de you'll note that they claim that their beta includes no GPL'ed code.
Care to prove otherwise?
Everyone should keep in mind that these accusations are being made by "the project from hell"
Actually if you look at www.xboxmediaplayer.de you'll note that they claim that their beta includes no GPL'ed code.
Care to prove otherwise?
Everyone should keep in mind that these accusations are being made by "the project from hell"
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously don't play games, compile things, encode media, etc. :), etc.
Yeah, obviously, if you only do wordprocessing and web browsing you're not going to notice the difference. Those are not the only uses for a computer.
I personally, max out my athlon's cpu load all the time, playing games, compiling things, using the autospellchecker in gaim
Heh, correction: I meant to say shift right by one.
It seems to me, that saying "code is design" is a lot like saying "the code is the documentation." Yeah, in a sense it's true, but code by itself is crappy documentation. The same for design. Code to display a JPEG is not a JPEG specfication. You may be able to figure out a partial JPEG spec from code to display them, but that doesn't make it a specfication. You need a design before you start writing code. That way you know if your code does what it's supposed to.
If you plan to do a good job on a complex project, coding is engineering. You don't just sit down and start coding a database/compiler/opeating system you think about it first. You consider things like: "This operation is O(n^2) can it be made O(NlogN) and if so what is the tradeoff?" "How fast does this program have to run? Is that feasible?" "Are these data structures efficient?"
People actually go to engineering schools to get degrees in Computer Science for a reason. Knowing how to write good code, is not the same thing as knowing how to write in some particular language. It requires an understanding of what goes on inside a computer. You need to understand things. A good programmer knows that a floating point division by 2 is much slower that a shift right by two and will use that knowledge. Computer Science is a type of engineering.
According to an economics textbook, in perfect competition, a company makes zero economic profit.
Economic profit is different than accounting profit.
Economic profit is accounting profit minus the opportunity cost of the next best thing the person/copmany could be doing. Companies do not report economic profit on their balance sheets. They report accounting profit. Accounting profit is what's at issue here.
If your textbook doesn't explain this, it's probably not a very good textbook.
The concept of economic profit is pretty interesting though. In this case, the movie studio is claiming to have made no accouting profit. This would make their economic profit negative, meaning that the company would have been better off doing something else with it's resources. This is obviously not the case, given the huge success of the movie.
What I imagine they'll do is just reinvest all their profit in the company. Since all the studio people people own stock in the company, they'll still make (theoretical) money because their stock value will rise.
There may still be a legal case here. At a whole company accouting scale they may be able to just reinvest the profit back in to the comapany, but if one looks at just a single picture, then you make be able to prove they made a profit. If they can't prove that all their "expenses" are tied to the picture, then they may not be able to figure them in when they calulated how much money the picture made.
Actually, by the Patriot Act, hacking IS an act of terrorism. I forget the exact wording of it, but any attempt to gain access to a government computer system is considered a act of terrorism.
Just because it a law doesn't make it right.
Or as someone once said: Ignorance is no excuse for the law.
Tiny linux distros work great for do simple tasks with hardware that would otherwise sit in your closet. I use an old P100 with a couple network cards in it as my router.
It works great:
It's been 19 days since I put it on a UPS
Yeah, whatever. I don't HAVE to register to read slashdot. /. because I get messages when someone replies to my comments. The only way to do this is to have a user id.
I registered with
There's no reason you make me register just to read a news story unless they're selling the information. Free depends on how you look at things. Marketing data is worth money, you must give it to them to read their stories, therefore they aren't exactly free.
I refuse to register with the NYT because I don't want to encourage what I consider annoying behavior. If I had to register with every site I look at, I would have to spend half my web browsing time registering for sites, many of which I would never visit again.
There are plenty of other places to get news that don't make you jump through silly hoops just to access a story. The BBC being the best example. They have a much better registration policy than the NYT, none. You only have to register with them if you're actually getting an individualized service, like email.
A news site can have adds without making me login. And how can you be sure they don't know who you are? I would bet they keep track of IPs. It's not an insurmountable tast to find out who has a given IP address. I'm not trying to be overly paranoid here. I'm just trying to be realistic about how much data they have about you.
Keeping track of registration info is a pain in the ass. Yeah, they can put it in a cookie, but I'm a college student. I don't use one computer. I'll stop by a computer lab around lunchtime, and I don't want to deal registering every time. I already have a crapload of passwords to remember for things that actually need them to function. I'm not about to start remebering logins for 50 different sites just becuase they all want my marketing data.
Hey, Google doesn't make me login to do a search. They seem to be doing just fine. And there's no way I would use Google is they did. Even if they tell me that they don't sell records of what I search for, it doesn't matter. Most privacy policies are total b.s. Often they have a clause which allows them to be changed at any time, sometimes without any notification. That's why I keep track of what info I acutally give out on the web. Then, I don't have to trust them. I know my info is safe because I never gave it to them in the first place. I know that I'm not going to get spam from them because I never gave them my email address.
If you can move your mouse to a precision of 700nm, I'm very impressed :-)
:)
I know I guy who could probably do this.
He's a neurobiology professor.
He says he used to be able to hold his hand steady to within one wavelength of light. I haven't seen it but, I bet it would be pretty impressive to watch. Of couse, without a nice microscope, you might as well not watch at all
You aren't really being fair here. $50 will only cover one license. You have to multiply that $50 by the number of machines it needs to be installed on.
If you need to intstall this software on a mere 20 computers, you're already talking $1000.
If some it guy has to muck around compiling something for a few hours, that time will still work out to less than $1000.
Now let's say you decide you need to watermark thing like you said: What a shame, but the version of the software you bought doesn't support watermarking. You're either SOL or you have to buy the new version/professional version/different program. You left out this money too.
I'm not trying to claim that OSS is always the cheapest way to go, just don't forget that companies almost always need more than one copy of a program. This needs to be figured into the cost.
Self powered hubs, those that are plugged into the wall or on the back of a machine give you 5v at up to 500 mA. 2.5 Watts. Bus powered hubs, those that get their power from USB provide 5v at 100 mA. For a grand total of 1 Watt. It could take quite a bit of time to recharge at that rate.
A NiMH AAA rechargeable batt. is about 600 mAh. It would only take a little more than and hour to recharge, and around 6 through a non-powered hub.
First, I'm going to skip everything but your last question. Then, I'm going to answer: I can't.
There's never going to be one static set of laws that all people agree with and live under. Another poster wrote $100M. I think that's a little high, but it would still be a lot better than what we have right now. If I had to pick myself, I would say $20M.
There's no single answer to the question "when is it okay to kill someone" yet the laws of our society provide this answer (at least legally). At some point people debated it, and then wrote some laws. I don't claim that they're perfect, but I think they're better than not having any.
I'm really curious as to what number you would pick. I don't want to tell you why too much property it too much either. What number would you pick today, given you own personal thoughts about property rights?
As far as the morality stuff, whatever. Both being gay and being a rapist/murderer and against Catholicism/Bible-beltism/whatever, but that doesn't make them the same. Someone being gay doesn't interfere with my rights, someone raping/murdering me does. See the difference?
I agree that the intent is different. It's just my opinion that intent shouldn't matter. (obviusly not the judge's in the decss case)
Take the google example, chances are someone there has though at the fact that their search engine indexes some things that are illegal. one might even be able to find an internal email on the subject. With that email, one could allege that since they know some of the things they index are illegal and didn't do anything about it, they willfully aided copyright infringement. One could make this argument, but I don't think one could win. But it gives and example of why I think intent should not matter.
I think arguing over intent is silly. It should be either okay to link to something or illegal. Anything else leaves too much ambiguity.
I understand the state the law is in currently, I just think it's a lousy state to be in.
All the computers that data goes through to get to you on the internet have a "functional role" is publishing everything you read. Not a huge one but it's there. It's just my opinion that the buck should stop with the person who is actually hosting the data. Google will give me links to the DeCSS code if I want them, but it would be ridiculous and very bad for the internet to hold them responsible for it. It would as be trivial for me to trick Google into linking to my site when it didn't have the DeCSS code and the adding it after it gets indexed. I could even just block their ip range from accessing that file, so they couldn't tell if they were linking to something illegal or not. You can see how quickly it would become nearly impossible to make sure you were following the law.
I am also very sad to tell you that different people get treated differently, so chances are you would get a diffrent treatment than 2600 did. You might care to note that this site : http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/ is still up.
As far as intent goes, I don't like the idea of a "thought crime" at all. If the guys at 2600 don't like copyright law, that should be their choice. They have to follow copyright law, but they should be able to speak out against it, as well as point out its idiocy in certain cases.
Look up what a sociopath is actually read my post and then reply. The words actually have meanings, they aren't just bolded or unbolded text. They form sentences. These express ideas. You should respond to those. Instead you spend most of your post talking about all the various groups you've chosen to spend you life hating.
You should educate yourself. Not everyone who disagrres with you is a fundamentalist Christian. If you've adopted fifty starving children from Africa, then that's a good thing, but I doubt you have. Either way it doesn't matter.
If people give you shit because you're gay, that's lame. You being gay doesn't interfere with my life and I don't really care if you're gay or not. It doesn't tie into this argument at all.
I don't really care how you live your life if it doesn't affect me. If you own all the widgets, it does affect me. I can't get any because you have them all, and some for some types of widgets there is a fixed supply (ex: land). It's just the simple truth. I challenge you do disprove it. Not to criticize my choice of the word widget, or fling embarassing labels around, but to actually read, comprehend and then respond. If you get that far think about how you would fix this? Can you think of a better way to keep someone from owning too many widgets or are you dead set on believing that no one can ever have too much?
Slashdot did not link to any warez. It is Slashdot's policy that all posts are owned by their posters. Slashdot cannot and should not stop you from posting a link to kiddie porn in your next comment. But, since you own the comment, you might expect a knock on your door if you do.
A link is a link. Period. It's a shame some judges can't understand that. If you post a link to something on someone else's site, you can't stop them from putting kiddie porn in that location. You would think that a person such as yourself, who's website is what it is would understand that. All it would take for you go to go to jail is one little slip up right? Just post one illegal thing that someone doesn't like and your done.
BEGIN RANT
Law about links are idiotic. Yeah you could check every link on your site once every five minutes to make sure they don't point to anything illegal, but that's just stupid.
This is why the current kiddie porn laws are stupid in the first place. All you need is a little bit of kiddie porn, email it to someone, and call the cops. Them having downloaded those images to their PC even if they put them right in their trash folder is enough to convict them. They still have the images on their pc and tha's all the law requires. It's ridiculous.
END RANT
Regular VNC does the password lockout thing as well. I once wrote a pearl script to test this, as I had a machine running VNC sitting right on the net and didn't want it to get owned.
If you're going to be insulting, expect it right back. And yes, that's right I'm challenging your morality of lack thereof. Having a social conscience is not equivalent to being a fundamentalist Christian. May you should go back to high school. You could probably learn a lot.
Your entire post is BS. The first sentence is an insult. All it does is make you look bad. The second equates two things that are not the same. You might also care to notice that I said 'I [] have a social conscience'. I didn't say anything about yours. I was showing what a fool you were to think that the only reason to think as I do is class envy. I have clearly shown this since you're no longer claiming it. Your concept or morality appears to be ludicrously warped, since you think caring about others around you makes you a fundamentalist Christian. With the ability to make these ridiculous jumps in (un)logic there's no wonder you're a libertarian. Caring about other human beings is actually a good thing. Sorry if this concept is foreign to you, since that would make you a scumbag and textbook sociopath.
Two words: class envy. It's getting so old and so tired, yet it will probably never ever go away.
Class envy my ass. I just have something called a social conscience.
what in the hell does someone having a billion dollars have to do with democracy working?
Yeah, because money has no influence in politics. Are you really this clueless?
What are you some kind of greedy ratbastard? ;)
At some point your ridiculous wealth becomes unfair to everone else. Why do you need a gold-plated Ferrari for every day of the month?
I think you point out the ididiocy of your own agrument. Some amounts of money are just obscene for one person to have. For one person to have 10 billion dollars is just nonsensical and stupid.
Why do you have to give money to the government at all? For the good of society, so that we can have things like roads and schools. You seem to have no concern for other people. You act like it's your god-given right to own as much as you want. Don't you think there should be a limit? What if some other greedy ratbastard beats you to owning everything? Doesn't that interfere with your nonsensical right?
Yes, we all have rights, but they only extend so far.
Let me just say, damn I wish I was in your tax bracket. And no I don't feel sorry for you at all. People need to pay taxes so we have things like roads and schools.
I hate monopolies, I love competition. Certain types of price fixing is a crime. Criminals suck. The gov't is not a bunch of criminals for taking your money. They are doing things that benefit society with that money. Ever drive on a public road?
You tax rate is prorably so high because your income is high and whatever country you live in was wise enopugh to institute some sort of progressive tax system. If you don't like having a gov't you should find a place where you can live among fellow anarchists. You can grow your own food and carry a gun everwhere you go, while watching you standard of living go to shit.
I personally believe that at some level of income, the tax rate for individuals should become 100%. No one person should have a billion dollars, it's impossible for a democaracy to exist when people do. The economy would still function just fine under this system, since indiviuals could still pool their money by creating corporations.
I didn't think so.
disclaimer for the humor impaired: I don't actually want to root this guy's box. I am not a terrorist, nor a member of al-qaeda.
So how exactly do your statements show that OpenBSD wouldn't be more secure if it was GPL'ed?
The point is: "what license promotes security the best" What OS is currently most secure, may or may not be under that license.
BTW, I would probably agree with you about OpenBSD's security.
Actually if you look at www.xboxmediaplayer.de you'll note that they claim that their beta includes no GPL'ed code. Care to prove otherwise? Everyone should keep in mind that these accusations are being made by "the project from hell"
Actually if you look at www.xboxmediaplayer.de you'll note that they claim that their beta includes no GPL'ed code.
Care to prove otherwise?
Everyone should keep in mind that these accusations are being made by "the project from hell"