These regulations would ban non-Chinese firms from selling software to the Chinese government
How should we counter it? Do nothing! No, really. Think about this. What it means is that China is limiting the population of people who can supply stuff to their government. When supply goes down, the price goes up. China is punishing themselves. We don't need to do anything. The absolutely dumbest thing we could do is "retaliate" by deciding to limit our own supply (e.g. establishing a reciprical trade rule).
Why I'd be annoyed by this is that I think I should get my own code for free, not a discount! Ideally, I'd like it to be a fair exchange. They got a copy of my code for free so they should give me a copy of their code for free. But I'll settle for getting a copy of their binary for free. What is completely unacceptable to me is that they get to use my work, without paying me, but they don't offer me the same consideration (using their code without paying them). So I use the GPL to prevent that.
If this kind of thing doesn't bother you, don't let me stop you from using whatever license you prefer. But since it does bother me, I'm going to respond accordingly.
Ok. But BSD being "more" free is not really in dispute... at least I don't think it is. What's in dispute is whether or not BSD is a better licensing model than GPL. As someone who's published GPL licensed code, I don't really consider the BSD license that much. Mainly because it would irk me to no end if I bought a piece of software from someone else, and it turned out to have my code in it!
BSD is great (IMHO) for things like reference implementations (e.g. for TCP/IP). For things that you want implemented everywhere. But if you don't want your code ending up proprietary then it's not as good. GPL is better at keeping your code open.
Which is to say that there are advantages to each license, and it's not obvious to me that either is inherantly better than the other.
Well, I didn't say that, and I don't think it follows from my comments. Just because too much of something is bad, doesn't mean the only way out is to have none of that thing. For example, you can spend too much time in the sun - it results in sunburn or other problems. But that doesn't mean that the only good thing for you is to hole yourself up in a dark closet.
In one sense, you're right. Digital is an abstraction of a wave. But that's like saying that there's no such thing as red, just an EM wavelength. The reality is that we call a particular wavelength red because that's the name we've given it. Digital is the same way. There are lots of different naming conventions, but they all come down to this: this particular waveform is a 0 and this other one is a 1. 0 and 1 are names for the wave form in exactly the same way that red is the name for a particular EM wavelength.
That being said, I know what you mean, but we abstract all kinds of things and give them names. Take cars for example. That's just an abstract name for an engine, a control system, a cabin, and wheels. But because cars are really composed of all of those things, doesn't mean that cars don't exist as things themselves.
I don't think this is a problem with corporate america. The problem is with the elected legislative bodies: congress and the president. They *allow* this kind of manipulation. The problem with government, as opposed to a capitalist corporation, is that for the entire period of election, the elected are no longer servant to those who elected them. This is not true with a corporation whose customers can leave them at any time.
The problem here isn't with corporate america. It's with the corruption that follows from putting too much power into government.
Re:Got my father switched today
on
Firefox Promo Videos
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I wonder if its possible to push more marketing toward the older generation who are too afraid to switch from "tried and true" MSIE/Outlook?
Good grief! When *I* think of the "older" generation, I think of people who amazed that an entire computer could fit into a single room. How wonderful that we've come far enough that we're worried about the distributed software that the "older" generation is using on their *personal* *computer*!
I'm done with this conversation. Call it whatever you want. I want to say that mimicing/copying/re-implementing is good - hence the GPL. You want to focus on minutia that are not relevant to my point.
This is my last post on this thread. Reply as much as you like
But you're still missing my point. Copying isn't bad. It's good! The problem with Microsoft isn't that they copy, but that they're a dead end. Once they copy something, it becomes particularly difficult for someone else to copy back.
Where did I say that the linux kernel mimics microsoft? I said that it mimics unix.
In any case, you're completely missing my point. Copying, mimicing or whatever you want to call it isn't bad. It isn't bad when Linux does it and it isn't bad when Microsoft does it. It's good. That's the point of the GPL.
When I said copy, I didn't mean it in the context of bit for bit copy. I meant in the same way that Microsoft copies functionality. In that sense, it seems ironic to me that Microsoft mimicing functionality is bad, but Linux doing it is OK.
I find it interesting to find a criticism of copying in a group dedicated to things like OpenOffice and Linux. Both of those are essentially copies of something else (OOo copies MS Office, Linux copies unix).
Copying isn't bad. It's good. That's the whole point of the GPL. Copying existing functionality allows people to focus on developing new functionality. Isn't that innovation?
I have personally mailed in dozens of rebates in my lifetime. I have received less than half of these back.
Wow! This is really surprising to me whenever I read it, because it's so counter to my experience. I've mailed in (literally) a dozen rebates since November 2004, with most of them going out at the end of December. So far the only ones I haven't received back yet are the ones that aren't due back yet (the ones sent in February). And this has been my experience for years. Every rebate I've ever sent in, I've gotten back.
Of course, I'm pedantic about tracking this stuff. And I make a copy of everything I send in (including the stamped envelope). And I hand date the copy. Over the last 6-7 years of sending in rebates, I've received every single one. This is somewhere on the order of 50-60 rebates.
I don't really understand why my experience is so different than many other people's experience.
Maybe, but cracking contests *can* demonstrate that something is insecure. IOW what might come out of this is that a professionally setup linux is just as insecure as an unprofessionally setup linux. If it doesn't get broken into, we don't know anything. If it does, we know something about the professionals who set it up.
If this is not true, then what is the value of publically demonstrating a weakness? Publically demonstrating a weakness tells us about the weakness. Not being able to publically demonstrate a weakness does not mean the product is strong.
In other words you can prove, through contests that something is insecure. But you can't prove that it's secure.... or am I completely wrong?
The town may not be an alien overlord, but if 75% of the population wants the municipality to build broadband, they will force the remaining 25% to subsidize broadband. If those 75% want to fund something, that's fine. But they should fund it entirely on their own and not extract money from others.
And for being far afield, you're right. Personally, I find taxation in general to be offensive. The vast majority of the time, anyone that says "stop taxation" is doing the right thing. In exactly the same way that the vast majority of the time, anyone who says "stop stealing" is doing the right thing. Both stealing and taxation forcibly extract money from one person (or group of people) and use it to fund something that is not wanted by the rightful owner of that money. I do not see a difference. IMHO both are wrong.
I would not be opposed to allowing the town to build their own broadband as long as they don't use tax money to do it. As soon as you introduce tax money, you force some number of people to pay for something that they don't want. It doesn't matter how small that number is. It's still wrong to appropriate money from someone and use it for something that they don't want. And it doesn't matter how good the cause is, either. Forcing someone to fund something that they don't want is wrong.
I said earlier in this conversation that I was fine if the town decided to do this as long as they didn't pay for it using taxes. So let's take it down another level. Why should the town be dictating what the citizens must spend money on? When the town funds this thing through taxes they force some subset of the citizens to pay for something that they don't want.
My point with respect to private schools is that they can't compete with public schools because public schools are forcibly funded by everyone, even those who don't use them. While private schools must draw all of their funding exclusively from the people who use them.
What you say about having a cheaper option keeping prices down is true in a market. Tax subsidies skew the school system such that it's not a market, so that rule does not apply. We don't know what the lowest price would be in a market because there isn't a free market for schooling.
As soon as you fund it through taxes, you're forcing the citizenry to fund it. There's a whole bunch of people who will not want nor need that item. They will be forced to pay for something that they don't want nor need.
Private schools exist for people who are willing to pay additional in order to get their children a better education. But private schools are not the biggest provider of education in any municipality that I know of. By far, the biggest provider is the public school system which taxes everyone and engages in price fixing for its employees. Only a small number of people are willing to pay for two school systems and only receive an education for their children from one of them. Which is why the total population of private schools is so much smaller than the total population of public schools. And that doesn't even take into account the people who don't have any children. How much should they pay for a service that provides them nothing? Nor does it take into account how the price fixing negatively impacts teachers.
Talking about public eduction makes my point very well. The public school system sucks. The private school systems are prohibatively expensive because they can't compete fairly. You want this same scenario for broadband?
Forcing the entire citizenry to subsidize one broadband solution is going to make their pricing model less than the private solutions. Doing that forces people who don't even want broadband to fund it. That's anti-competitive. That's a monopoly. I don't see the value in replacing one monopoly with which you have a choice about funding with another which you don't have a choice about funding.
Slashdot Mirror
How should we counter it? Do nothing! No, really. Think about this. What it means is that China is limiting the population of people who can supply stuff to their government. When supply goes down, the price goes up. China is punishing themselves. We don't need to do anything. The absolutely dumbest thing we could do is "retaliate" by deciding to limit our own supply (e.g. establishing a reciprical trade rule).
Why I'd be annoyed by this is that I think I should get my own code for free, not a discount! Ideally, I'd like it to be a fair exchange. They got a copy of my code for free so they should give me a copy of their code for free. But I'll settle for getting a copy of their binary for free. What is completely unacceptable to me is that they get to use my work, without paying me, but they don't offer me the same consideration (using their code without paying them). So I use the GPL to prevent that.
If this kind of thing doesn't bother you, don't let me stop you from using whatever license you prefer. But since it does bother me, I'm going to respond accordingly.
Ok. But BSD being "more" free is not really in dispute... at least I don't think it is. What's in dispute is whether or not BSD is a better licensing model than GPL. As someone who's published GPL licensed code, I don't really consider the BSD license that much. Mainly because it would irk me to no end if I bought a piece of software from someone else, and it turned out to have my code in it!
BSD is great (IMHO) for things like reference implementations (e.g. for TCP/IP). For things that you want implemented everywhere. But if you don't want your code ending up proprietary then it's not as good. GPL is better at keeping your code open.
Which is to say that there are advantages to each license, and it's not obvious to me that either is inherantly better than the other.
$.02
Well, I didn't say that, and I don't think it follows from my comments. Just because too much of something is bad, doesn't mean the only way out is to have none of that thing. For example, you can spend too much time in the sun - it results in sunburn or other problems. But that doesn't mean that the only good thing for you is to hole yourself up in a dark closet.
Don't overestimate it, either. See Don't The Wisdom of Crowds.
In one sense, you're right. Digital is an abstraction of a wave. But that's like saying that there's no such thing as red, just an EM wavelength. The reality is that we call a particular wavelength red because that's the name we've given it. Digital is the same way. There are lots of different naming conventions, but they all come down to this: this particular waveform is a 0 and this other one is a 1. 0 and 1 are names for the wave form in exactly the same way that red is the name for a particular EM wavelength.
That being said, I know what you mean, but we abstract all kinds of things and give them names. Take cars for example. That's just an abstract name for an engine, a control system, a cabin, and wheels. But because cars are really composed of all of those things, doesn't mean that cars don't exist as things themselves.
$.02
I don't think this is a problem with corporate america. The problem is with the elected legislative bodies: congress and the president. They *allow* this kind of manipulation. The problem with government, as opposed to a capitalist corporation, is that for the entire period of election, the elected are no longer servant to those who elected them. This is not true with a corporation whose customers can leave them at any time.
The problem here isn't with corporate america. It's with the corruption that follows from putting too much power into government.
Right here.
(BTW: I use firefox and mutt. I just look old.)
I think it was meant as a joke. E.g. you can fix the download and reinstall problem by downloading and reinstalling 1.1!
Well, in any case, I thought it was funny. I just didn't have a mod point to rate it as such.
I'm done with this conversation. Call it whatever you want. I want to say that mimicing/copying/re-implementing is good - hence the GPL. You want to focus on minutia that are not relevant to my point.
This is my last post on this thread. Reply as much as you like
Where did I say that the linux kernel mimics microsoft? I said that it mimics unix.
In any case, you're completely missing my point. Copying, mimicing or whatever you want to call it isn't bad. It isn't bad when Linux does it and it isn't bad when Microsoft does it. It's good. That's the point of the GPL.
When I said copy, I didn't mean it in the context of bit for bit copy. I meant in the same way that Microsoft copies functionality. In that sense, it seems ironic to me that Microsoft mimicing functionality is bad, but Linux doing it is OK.
I find it interesting to find a criticism of copying in a group dedicated to things like OpenOffice and Linux. Both of those are essentially copies of something else (OOo copies MS Office, Linux copies unix).
Copying isn't bad. It's good. That's the whole point of the GPL. Copying existing functionality allows people to focus on developing new functionality. Isn't that innovation?
Awesome comment! Score:+1,Virtual Mod Point
Of course, I'm pedantic about tracking this stuff. And I make a copy of everything I send in (including the stamped envelope). And I hand date the copy. Over the last 6-7 years of sending in rebates, I've received every single one. This is somewhere on the order of 50-60 rebates.
I don't really understand why my experience is so different than many other people's experience.
Try KnoppMyth. I don't know if it crosses your threshold of "easy", but it's definately easier than building myth from soruce.
Maybe, but cracking contests *can* demonstrate that something is insecure. IOW what might come out of this is that a professionally setup linux is just as insecure as an unprofessionally setup linux. If it doesn't get broken into, we don't know anything. If it does, we know something about the professionals who set it up.
... or am I completely wrong?
If this is not true, then what is the value of publically demonstrating a weakness? Publically demonstrating a weakness tells us about the weakness. Not being able to publically demonstrate a weakness does not mean the product is strong.
In other words you can prove, through contests that something is insecure. But you can't prove that it's secure.
The town may not be an alien overlord, but if 75% of the population wants the municipality to build broadband, they will force the remaining 25% to subsidize broadband. If those 75% want to fund something, that's fine. But they should fund it entirely on their own and not extract money from others.
And for being far afield, you're right. Personally, I find taxation in general to be offensive. The vast majority of the time, anyone that says "stop taxation" is doing the right thing. In exactly the same way that the vast majority of the time, anyone who says "stop stealing" is doing the right thing. Both stealing and taxation forcibly extract money from one person (or group of people) and use it to fund something that is not wanted by the rightful owner of that money. I do not see a difference. IMHO both are wrong.
I would not be opposed to allowing the town to build their own broadband as long as they don't use tax money to do it. As soon as you introduce tax money, you force some number of people to pay for something that they don't want. It doesn't matter how small that number is. It's still wrong to appropriate money from someone and use it for something that they don't want. And it doesn't matter how good the cause is, either. Forcing someone to fund something that they don't want is wrong.
$.02
I said earlier in this conversation that I was fine if the town decided to do this as long as they didn't pay for it using taxes. So let's take it down another level. Why should the town be dictating what the citizens must spend money on? When the town funds this thing through taxes they force some subset of the citizens to pay for something that they don't want.
My point with respect to private schools is that they can't compete with public schools because public schools are forcibly funded by everyone, even those who don't use them. While private schools must draw all of their funding exclusively from the people who use them.
What you say about having a cheaper option keeping prices down is true in a market. Tax subsidies skew the school system such that it's not a market, so that rule does not apply. We don't know what the lowest price would be in a market because there isn't a free market for schooling.
As soon as you fund it through taxes, you're forcing the citizenry to fund it. There's a whole bunch of people who will not want nor need that item. They will be forced to pay for something that they don't want nor need.
Private schools exist for people who are willing to pay additional in order to get their children a better education. But private schools are not the biggest provider of education in any municipality that I know of. By far, the biggest provider is the public school system which taxes everyone and engages in price fixing for its employees. Only a small number of people are willing to pay for two school systems and only receive an education for their children from one of them. Which is why the total population of private schools is so much smaller than the total population of public schools. And that doesn't even take into account the people who don't have any children. How much should they pay for a service that provides them nothing? Nor does it take into account how the price fixing negatively impacts teachers.
Talking about public eduction makes my point very well. The public school system sucks. The private school systems are prohibatively expensive because they can't compete fairly. You want this same scenario for broadband?
Forcing the entire citizenry to subsidize one broadband solution is going to make their pricing model less than the private solutions. Doing that forces people who don't even want broadband to fund it. That's anti-competitive. That's a monopoly. I don't see the value in replacing one monopoly with which you have a choice about funding with another which you don't have a choice about funding.
OK. Then let them. Just make sure that they don't use tax money to do it.