Actually, I have no problem with anything you said. If these are your beliefs, more power to you. The problem is, I can find someone who believes just the opposite. He will be just as sure that he knows the one truth.
Still not a real problem. The problem comes in when someone with that type of belief system decides it makes them infallible, and therefore they have the right to impose those beliefs on everyone else. Believing as you do is not a problem for me; if you try to legislate your beliefs, that is. That's why when this country was founded (for economic reasons, not religious ones, BTW) it was decided that government should not interfere with religion and religion should not interfere with government. That way everyone can follow their heart in whatever direction it takes them.
To answer a question you posed in another thread, no, I'm not bitter. However, history (especially, it seems, of this country) is often 'rewritten' on the fly to support various viewpoints; it's a pet peeve of mine. Don't even get me started on the whole "Marconi invented radio" fiasco.;)
The very concept of individualism, so fundamental to our government and our society, originates with Thomas Jefferson's belief that only a government founded on the rights of the individual can avoid degenerating into despotism.
All of American jurisprudence has its source in the Constitution, which derives from many ideas, but primarily the belief that only when the rights of the individual take precedence over the rights of the government will that government survive.
I have heard the words "we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights..."; has it ever occured to you to wonder why it doesn't say "our God"?
The original settlers of this country (America) came here with the purpose of establishing a claim to this land for Queen Elizabeth, who was afraid Spain was going to claim it. The group usually referred to as pilgrims (the puritans) came later, were a small proportion of the immigrants, and by the time this country was formed no longer existed as a cohesive group.
The movement to maintain slavery was also led by christians; and the abolitionists were motivated by their belief that one man cannot own another. Religion played a large part in this belief for many; for many it did not.
The Bible and Christianity have had a large part in American history. Things like the Salem witch trials, for instance. They are frequently the motivating force behind attempts to establish the types of tyranny most immigrants to this country came here to escape.
Your mind is pretty powerful, or you (we) would not even be capable of contemplating such things.
And the important question, as I see it, is not whether or not there is universal truth. It is whether you or I, as human beings, can ever be 100% sure we know it. Not believe it, know it. And I would submit that if the answer to that question were yes, then there would only be one religion, not the thousands that we currently have.
Then I would say that you and I are using different words to say the same thing.;) As for who is right, we all are. As long as we realize that we're only right insofar as it applies to ourselves.
Just because something is done in the name of God doesn't mean that it is Gods will. There is a big difference.
This is an excellent point that doesn't get made often enough. However, one of the major problems of organized religion is that it encourages men to believe that they know God's will, and then impose it on everyone else.
I believe with every inch of my heart that my "religion is right"
And there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It's when it causes you or anyone else to believe that there is no possibility that you're wrong, and then to act on that belief, that the trouble begins.
The complete text of Article VI, Section 3 (note that it's article six of the main document, not the Bill of Rights):
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
I don't think the federal government was the only target of that concept, or they wouldn't have specifically mentioned the States twice. As for state and local governments requiring religious tests for office, you are right. I would point out however that those tests are frequently struck down as being unconstitutional (as they should be).
Although I realize that to a degree this comes down to opinion and interpretation, I don't necessarily agree that we interpret the First Amendment more broadly that the Founding Fathers did. I think, rather, that we interpret it more broadly (as a nation and government) than we have in the past, but still not as broadly as those who wrote it meant us to.
nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution The U.S. Constitution
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever Thomas Jefferson, principle author of the U.S. Constitution
judges in the early 20th century decided to add a few things (like separation of church and state, for instance.)
From the United States Constitution:
Article VI, Section 3 - ...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Hardly a twentieth century notion. As for your other (just as wrong) points -
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion... - John Adams, while President of the United States
All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. - All quotes by Thomas Jefferson
Joe Haldeman wrote in the forward to one of his books that people who learn their science from science fiction deserve what they get. I suppose the same can be said for those who learn their history in church.
the RedHat 'GNOME is our desktop of the future' noise
My fault for not being clear, but this is actually the kind of thing I meant by button pushing. Someone (RH for instance) who gets a fair amount of press attention saying 'by the by, check this out'. Not anything really wrong with this, but they should probably point to both projects.
I should probably also note that I don't use either environment. I tried GNOME a while back and didn't like it, and I've never tried KDE.
I don't know if you were at LinuxWorld Expo, but the majority of desktops that I saw were KDE (and not by just a little). I just found it funny that the press is all over GNOME when KDE appears to be the desktop that most people are currently using (if they use one at all).
Fvwm, enlightenment, etc are window managers. GNOME and KDE are operating environments (think Windows 3.1 done right).
As for why all the hoopla for GNOME, it's pretty simple. It's because for years people have been told by Microsoft and Apple that only they have the brainpower and resources to create that type of environment. Along comes a kid from Mexico and shows every sign of replicating their work and making it better at the same time, and as if that wasn't enough he's giving it away for free! Can't beat that with a stick as far as good feature stories go.
Please note that the above paragraph makes the same oversimplifications the press does specifically to show you their viewpoint.
The only real question I have is why KDE hasn't gotten the same kind of press. The license issues that made it such a pariah to many aren't even going to be on the radar screen of the mainstream press. Kinda makes you wonder if someone isn't pushing some buttons somewhere, huh?
Well, I don't know about Texas law, but in California non-compete contracts/clauses are illegal. This doesn't stop companies from including them in NDAs (the theory being that it'll cost too much money to fight it even though you'll win), but they're neither legal nor enforcable here.
Actually, many standard components of NDAs aren't legal. I've often wondered why companies aren't held liable for requiring employees to sign contracts that include illegal clauses; I suppose, though, that would mean that people wouldn't have to sue to enforce their rights. Then what would all those lawyers do for a living?
Hmm. It has been my (mis)fortune to know more lawyers than programmers. Both are groups that have very strong stereotypes. It has been my experience that about 30% of programmers fit the stereotype in most ways. It has been my experience that virtually all lawyers fit the stereotype in most ways. Even when I met one who insisted "we're not all like that; a few bad apples make the bunch look bad", he turned out to be someone who would sell his grandmother if the price was reasonable.
If lawyers are tired of being beaten up on (poor things; $130/hr for this?) perhaps they should put a little less work into things like seeing how they can get their fingers into everyone's pie and a little more time into cleaning up their profession.
Actually, no, he's not. Gore has been proposing a large scale national network for some years. One which bore no resemblence to the current Internet. When the popularity of the net took off, he quietly started making it sound like the 'net was the network he was talking about (which anyone who has followed his comments on it would know).
He knows the vast majority of people will never know the difference, so he's going to take whatever credit he can. He's been doing it quite awhile now. While this latest claim is the boldest one I've seen yet, it's basically business as usual.
Let me say up front that I don't believe that all software should be open source. While I have thought for a long time (long before I ever heard of Linux) that an open model was the best way to create an operating system for widespread use, I think it's a mistake to think all software should work this way.
If indeed your world market can be saturated by a half dozen companies, then your software may be better off being proprietary. Most of the advantages of open source are not going to be available to you.
It's fairly simple to see if GPL'ing your software is a good move. Does GPL software currently exist that can be used to serve your customer base without large scale modification? If so, does using this software result in productivity gains that justify you GPL'ing any modifications and additional code you write? If you can answer these questions affirmatively, then you probably ought to take a serious look at doing it.
If the answer to those questions is no, then you have to ask if the added benefit of additional people working on the code is going to outweigh the financial benefits of keeping the code proprietary. If you indeed serve a small market, the answer to this question is almost certainly no. In that case, go on as you are.
Please note that these are opinions based on looking at it from a business perspective (IOW, you want to turn a profit). I realize that they fly in the face of much of the free software philosophy, but you have to realize that for some companies there are only two alternatives: make proprietary software or cease to exist. Whether these companies should cease to exist I'll leave for another day.;)
... a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention.
I've no doubt that IBM (as well as many other companies that are granted several hundred patents per year) has many bright people working for them. I find it very difficult to believe that they are sufficiently removed from those with "ordinary skill" that they are able to create "better mousetraps" that meet the above requirement several times per week on an ongoing basis. Not saying that they never do; but not every day.
Take this a step further. Patents are supposed to be granted for unique, non-obvious inventions. Companies like IBM are awarded several patents every week.
Am I really supposed to believe that IBM has assembled groups of people so brilliant that they can conceive and implement (ideas alone are not patentable) ideas that noone has ever thought of before on a sustained, daily basis? I think there is just the slightest strain on credibility here.
It's interesting to read some of the patents that get mentioned here on Slashdot and then go to the USPTO page and see what they have to say. Most of the ones that have been mentioned so far are, at least in part, explicitly in violation of patent law as described by the patent office.
I really do think this is an area where a class action suit could do a world of good; sue the USPTO on behalf of all the entrepreneurs and businesses that have been hurt by the granting of bogus patents. I would bet they'd put some serious thought into what they do and don't grant in the future.
Gates is a very neurotic person
on
Windows ID
·
· Score: 1
I always like to draw a parallel between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. They both want to be in control. They both want to be on top. But Steve Jobs wants to do it to prove he's better than everyone else. If he doesn't do it by being better, it doesn't count. Gates, on the other hand, just wants to be on top and doesn't care how he gets there, as long as he gets there.
Do they? In America that question is still open for debate. I know how I feel about it, but there has been no really strong legal precedent set.
However, if they're selling these products and collecting this information in Europe, then they're in violation of several countries' privacy laws. People really need to get over thinking that just because Microsoft (or any other company) sells you some software that they have the right to tell you what to do with your computer or collect all the information about you that they want.
It's a weak mind indeed that falls for their "it's just good business" BS.
AFAIK, X doesn't have a user interface. They left that to others to implement on top of X. Whether that is good or bad is largely a matter of opinion, but it does make it much easier to fix the bad ones. In any case, the problem is not with X but the programmers who use it.
Try opening 15 Netscape windows on a Win95 box with 64 megs RAM, then try the same thing on a Linux/X box.
Considering the number of programs you can do this with and have no problem, and the fact that those who want to disparage X always use this exact example, I would say the problem is with Netscape, and not with X. If the Linux version of Netscape is more bloated than the Windows version, how is that the fault of X? More the fault of Motif perhaps?
Now, in the interests of a fair comparison, open five different programs on your Windows box, each of which are running on a different machine than the others (and yes, the ability to do this does come in very handy).
I think if you take a close look at it, most of the problems people have with X (definitely not all, though) aren't with X itself, but with the way it's used. Personally, if I total up all the pros and cons of both X and Windows, it's not even close. X wins hands down. I recognize, however, that we're all different and YMMV.
The problem I have with this (and I will say up front you know more about it than I do) is that as you say, it is supposed to be a financial distinction. However, it is frequently used outside that context. When a company gets caught outright lying to consumers and defends it as exercising their freedom of speech as guaranteed in the Constitution (as seems to happen fairly regularly), I think we've gone beyond anything you're talking about in your post. In practice, it also seems to happen that corporations are given individual protections, but are exempt from individual responsibilities.
I think that for most of the things you've outlined, it is not necessary to make a corporation an individual. For instance, instead of saying that corporations have all the rights and protections that individuals have, you could create a law than simply states that in the case of liability the company is responsible, not it's officers (which I'm sure is probably how it all started). The rest should not automatically follow, but it seems in our system that it does.
I should point out that I'm not really taking exception to (or even necessarily disagreeing with) anything you've said, but I do think the current system is broken. Whether it's in concept or implementation I could not really say.
In the U.S., there may be no Constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy
Perhaps this is a good time to point out that contrary to what many people (esp. congress and law professors, it seems) believe, the fact that this right is not spelled out does not mean it does not exist.
The ninth amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
OS X is not going to be "rewritten" with linux, and no one should treat this as a possibility from reading this article.
Many people said the same thing about rumors of Netscape opening their source, and look what happened there. Also, to be fair, you haven't given anyone any reason to believe your opinion is worth any more than the one you're disparaging. Not meant as an insult; just pointing it out.
That said, I agree with you (well, minus the personal remarks about the author, anyway).
Makes you wonder, though, why Microsoft would apply for the patent?
Probably a Microsoft employee having some fun in his off time got caught by one of those "we own everything you produce including your next five children" NDA's.
Slashdot Mirror
Still not a real problem. The problem comes in when someone with that type of belief system decides it makes them infallible, and therefore they have the right to impose those beliefs on everyone else. Believing as you do is not a problem for me; if you try to legislate your beliefs, that is. That's why when this country was founded (for economic reasons, not religious ones, BTW) it was decided that government should not interfere with religion and religion should not interfere with government. That way everyone can follow their heart in whatever direction it takes them.
To answer a question you posed in another thread, no, I'm not bitter. However, history (especially, it seems, of this country) is often 'rewritten' on the fly to support various viewpoints; it's a pet peeve of mine. Don't even get me started on the whole "Marconi invented radio" fiasco. ;)
All of American jurisprudence has its source in the Constitution, which derives from many ideas, but primarily the belief that only when the rights of the individual take precedence over the rights of the government will that government survive.
I have heard the words "we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights..."; has it ever occured to you to wonder why it doesn't say "our God"?
The original settlers of this country (America) came here with the purpose of establishing a claim to this land for Queen Elizabeth, who was afraid Spain was going to claim it. The group usually referred to as pilgrims (the puritans) came later, were a small proportion of the immigrants, and by the time this country was formed no longer existed as a cohesive group.
The movement to maintain slavery was also led by christians; and the abolitionists were motivated by their belief that one man cannot own another. Religion played a large part in this belief for many; for many it did not.
The Bible and Christianity have had a large part in American history. Things like the Salem witch trials, for instance. They are frequently the motivating force behind attempts to establish the types of tyranny most immigrants to this country came here to escape.
And the important question, as I see it, is not whether or not there is universal truth. It is whether you or I, as human beings, can ever be 100% sure we know it. Not believe it, know it. And I would submit that if the answer to that question were yes, then there would only be one religion, not the thousands that we currently have.
Then I would say that you and I are using different words to say the same thing. ;) As for who is right, we all are. As long as we realize that we're only right insofar as it applies to ourselves.
This is an excellent point that doesn't get made often enough. However, one of the major problems of organized religion is that it encourages men to believe that they know God's will, and then impose it on everyone else.
I believe with every inch of my heart that my "religion is right"
And there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It's when it causes you or anyone else to believe that there is no possibility that you're wrong, and then to act on that belief, that the trouble begins.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
I don't think the federal government was the only target of that concept, or they wouldn't have specifically mentioned the States twice. As for state and local governments requiring religious tests for office, you are right. I would point out however that those tests are frequently struck down as being unconstitutional (as they should be).
Although I realize that to a degree this comes down to opinion and interpretation, I don't necessarily agree that we interpret the First Amendment more broadly that the Founding Fathers did. I think, rather, that we interpret it more broadly (as a nation and government) than we have in the past, but still not as broadly as those who wrote it meant us to.
The U.S. Constitution
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever
Thomas Jefferson, principle author of the U.S. Constitution
I think I am not the one in need of a hint.
From the United States Constitution:
Article VI, Section 3 -
...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Amendment I -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Hardly a twentieth century notion. As for your other (just as wrong) points -
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...
- John Adams, while President of the United States
All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites.
- All quotes by Thomas Jefferson
Joe Haldeman wrote in the forward to one of his books that people who learn their science from science fiction deserve what they get. I suppose the same can be said for those who learn their history in church.
My fault for not being clear, but this is actually the kind of thing I meant by button pushing. Someone (RH for instance) who gets a fair amount of press attention saying 'by the by, check this out'. Not anything really wrong with this, but they should probably point to both projects.
I should probably also note that I don't use either environment. I tried GNOME a while back and didn't like it, and I've never tried KDE.
I don't know if you were at LinuxWorld Expo, but the majority of desktops that I saw were KDE (and not by just a little). I just found it funny that the press is all over GNOME when KDE appears to be the desktop that most people are currently using (if they use one at all).
As for why all the hoopla for GNOME, it's pretty simple. It's because for years people have been told by Microsoft and Apple that only they have the brainpower and resources to create that type of environment. Along comes a kid from Mexico and shows every sign of replicating their work and making it better at the same time, and as if that wasn't enough he's giving it away for free! Can't beat that with a stick as far as good feature stories go.
Please note that the above paragraph makes the same oversimplifications the press does specifically to show you their viewpoint.
The only real question I have is why KDE hasn't gotten the same kind of press. The license issues that made it such a pariah to many aren't even going to be on the radar screen of the mainstream press. Kinda makes you wonder if someone isn't pushing some buttons somewhere, huh?
Also says this on their license plates. But what about the guys in the state penitentiary who are actually making those plates...? ;)
Actually, many standard components of NDAs aren't legal. I've often wondered why companies aren't held liable for requiring employees to sign contracts that include illegal clauses; I suppose, though, that would mean that people wouldn't have to sue to enforce their rights. Then what would all those lawyers do for a living?
If lawyers are tired of being beaten up on (poor things; $130/hr for this?) perhaps they should put a little less work into things like seeing how they can get their fingers into everyone's pie and a little more time into cleaning up their profession.
He knows the vast majority of people will never know the difference, so he's going to take whatever credit he can. He's been doing it quite awhile now. While this latest claim is the boldest one I've seen yet, it's basically business as usual.
If indeed your world market can be saturated by a half dozen companies, then your software may be better off being proprietary. Most of the advantages of open source are not going to be available to you.
It's fairly simple to see if GPL'ing your software is a good move. Does GPL software currently exist that can be used to serve your customer base without large scale modification? If so, does using this software result in productivity gains that justify you GPL'ing any modifications and additional code you write? If you can answer these questions affirmatively, then you probably ought to take a serious look at doing it.
If the answer to those questions is no, then you have to ask if the added benefit of additional people working on the code is going to outweigh the financial benefits of keeping the code proprietary. If you indeed serve a small market, the answer to this question is almost certainly no. In that case, go on as you are.
Please note that these are opinions based on looking at it from a business perspective (IOW, you want to turn a profit). I realize that they fly in the face of much of the free software philosophy, but you have to realize that for some companies there are only two alternatives: make proprietary software or cease to exist. Whether these companies should cease to exist I'll leave for another day. ;)
I've no doubt that IBM (as well as many other companies that are granted several hundred patents per year) has many bright people working for them. I find it very difficult to believe that they are sufficiently removed from those with "ordinary skill" that they are able to create "better mousetraps" that meet the above requirement several times per week on an ongoing basis. Not saying that they never do; but not every day.
Am I really supposed to believe that IBM has assembled groups of people so brilliant that they can conceive and implement (ideas alone are not patentable) ideas that noone has ever thought of before on a sustained, daily basis? I think there is just the slightest strain on credibility here.
It's interesting to read some of the patents that get mentioned here on Slashdot and then go to the USPTO page and see what they have to say. Most of the ones that have been mentioned so far are, at least in part, explicitly in violation of patent law as described by the patent office.
I really do think this is an area where a class action suit could do a world of good; sue the USPTO on behalf of all the entrepreneurs and businesses that have been hurt by the granting of bogus patents. I would bet they'd put some serious thought into what they do and don't grant in the future.
I always like to draw a parallel between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. They both want to be in control. They both want to be on top. But Steve Jobs wants to do it to prove he's better than everyone else. If he doesn't do it by being better, it doesn't count. Gates, on the other hand, just wants to be on top and doesn't care how he gets there, as long as he gets there.
However, if they're selling these products and collecting this information in Europe, then they're in violation of several countries' privacy laws. People really need to get over thinking that just because Microsoft (or any other company) sells you some software that they have the right to tell you what to do with your computer or collect all the information about you that they want.
It's a weak mind indeed that falls for their "it's just good business" BS.
AFAIK, X doesn't have a user interface. They left that to others to implement on top of X. Whether that is good or bad is largely a matter of opinion, but it does make it much easier to fix the bad ones. In any case, the problem is not with X but the programmers who use it.
Try opening 15 Netscape windows on a Win95 box with 64 megs RAM, then try the same thing on a Linux/X box.
Considering the number of programs you can do this with and have no problem, and the fact that those who want to disparage X always use this exact example, I would say the problem is with Netscape, and not with X. If the Linux version of Netscape is more bloated than the Windows version, how is that the fault of X? More the fault of Motif perhaps?
Now, in the interests of a fair comparison, open five different programs on your Windows box, each of which are running on a different machine than the others (and yes, the ability to do this does come in very handy).
I think if you take a close look at it, most of the problems people have with X (definitely not all, though) aren't with X itself, but with the way it's used. Personally, if I total up all the pros and cons of both X and Windows, it's not even close. X wins hands down. I recognize, however, that we're all different and YMMV.
I think that for most of the things you've outlined, it is not necessary to make a corporation an individual. For instance, instead of saying that corporations have all the rights and protections that individuals have, you could create a law than simply states that in the case of liability the company is responsible, not it's officers (which I'm sure is probably how it all started). The rest should not automatically follow, but it seems in our system that it does.
I should point out that I'm not really taking exception to (or even necessarily disagreeing with) anything you've said, but I do think the current system is broken. Whether it's in concept or implementation I could not really say.
Perhaps this is a good time to point out that contrary to what many people (esp. congress and law professors, it seems) believe, the fact that this right is not spelled out does not mean it does not exist.
The ninth amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Yes they do. Witness the tobacco industry claims that limiting their advertising infringes their freedom of speech.
I'm not sure who wrote the law that made corporations legally equivalent to individuals, but I'd love to give 'em a swift kick in the ass.
Many people said the same thing about rumors of Netscape opening their source, and look what happened there. Also, to be fair, you haven't given anyone any reason to believe your opinion is worth any more than the one you're disparaging. Not meant as an insult; just pointing it out.
That said, I agree with you (well, minus the personal remarks about the author, anyway).
Probably a Microsoft employee having some fun in his off time got caught by one of those "we own everything you produce including your next five children" NDA's.