I'm a little mystified by the common belief that more idiots voting will fix anything. The problem isn't a low voter turnout: it's a low incidence of self-education about politics, and a low incidence of the ability to reason clearly, that is the problem with the US electorate.
I don't think I can agree with that characterization of O'Rourke. Possibly the most critical piece of political literature for anyone going into politics (or planning to vote) to read is his book Parliament of Whores (Copyright 1991), which he primarily wrote while he was the White House correspondent for Rolling Stone (roughly a decade after he left National Lampoon).
Frankly, I'm opposed to the entire concept of forced distribution — which is essentially what the GPL is all about. I'd be happiest with a license that is the rights-equivalent of the new BSD license, but with Copyleft protection (i.e., you can't relicense the code or derivative works). A true right, after all, is not something that is forced: it's something that is protected. GPL tries to "force" rights.
Actually, I'd be happiest if everything in the world were public domain so I wouldn't have to deal with all this licensing crap at all. Toward that end, I actually created my own license, which I use for every original work I create. Its purpose is to provide a sort of "protected public domain" with explicit in-license "reminder" to provide proper attribution. It's intended to be applicable to any copyrightable work (not just software), and includes protection against patent entanglements. In the interests of cleverness, of course, I had to use a pun in the name, so I called it Credit as Credit's Due CopyWrite, or CCD CopyWrite for short.
In the long run, I figure this is exactly the sort of thing we need — protecting everyone's rights, rather than just protecting one group's rights and inventing new "rights" to assign to that group as much as the law will allow.
I agree — both with this, and (more importantly, perhaps) with the substance of your post that begins with a comment about missing the point of freedom. There's one thing here, though, with which I disagree:
The GPLv2 isn't broken.
In point of fact, it is broken. It's just not broken in the way the FSF thinks it is, or in any manner that GPLv3 is likely to fix. If anything, v3 makes it worse.
The proof is in the pudding, as they say. We're now seeing the FSF take up tactics similar to those of the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft (the "Great Satan" itself). In particular, the Free Software Foundation has taken to making legal threats to small Linux distribution projects. I'm not even talking about Windows knock-off source-restricting distributions like Linspire — I'm talking about community-supported and fully open-source distributions. They're being threatened with legal action for violation of the GPL thanks to GPLv2 terms that make it absurdly difficult for a grass-roots project to get started and remain financially sustainable.
Things are likely to only get worse from here. In addition to failing to solve any actual problems with most of the changes (though addressing patents is important, and at least that part of the proposed update wasn't entirely misconceived), v3 introduces stronger language supporting some of its failings and new problems. The entire exercise has become wildly absurd, and we're rapidly approaching a point where "free" software's worst enemy might be the FSF, with the GPL as its primary weapon. Using the GPL, according to clauses related to source code availability support requirement clauses, essentially mandates the expenditure of a fair bit of money by anyone wishing to distribute GPLed software. The amount of money involved (we're talking about three years of source code availability support beyond the last distributed binary) in maintaining source versions and distributing them for every single software binary distributed over the last three years effectively makes a fully grass-roots up to date derivative distro a pipe dream (or a legal nightmare waiting to happen if the money isn't spent).
Much as I love the Free/Libre/Open Source Software development model, I don't much like the GPL and the version of that development model it promises us via its terms. I never have, really — but now, the problems of the GPL have become a matter of practice, and not just theory, thanks to the overzealous "defense" of "free" software by the FSF.
(snip a bunch of irrelevant crap about the holy trinity)
Oh, so you admit they're all mentioned. Great!
(snip a bunch of really fruity nonsense about government)
You mentioned Nazis. Godwin's Law has been invoked. You lose. Have a good day.
It's really difficult to believe that you actually buy all you're selling. It's even more difficult to believe you try to sell this crap and have a positive Karma.
Exactly. I wish I had some mod points right now . . .
DRM isn't evil. What's evil is the fraud that so commonly accompanies it, and the corporate business law that allows the people committing such fraudulent acts to get away with their deceptions.
What Bible are you reading? I recall specific mentions of God, of a holy spirit, and of Jesus. There's your Trinity right there. I also recall specific mentions of Jesus being born (Christmas, though they got the date wrong), being resurrected (thus the "ressurection[sic]" to which you refer, and thus Easter Sunday, though again they got the date wrong), and a Day of Rest (thus Sunday, or Saturday, depending on which religious denomination's weekly calendar you're reading).
You say "You talk about protection of religious freedoms but are hostile to anyone else who has different beliefs than yours," but I honestly have no idea where you get that nonsense. It's your attempts to mold government in your narrow religious image that makes me hostile, not the religious beliefs behind it. Call yourself a Baptist, a nondenominational Christian (which is what you'd be calling yourself if you knew what the term "Christian" meant, I think), a Satanist, Asatru, Hindu, Taoist, Voudun, atheist, agnostic, or Ferrotheist -- I don't care. I'm just as likely to buy you a drink and talk philosophy with you regardless, all else being equal. It's when you start trying to impose a metaphysical belief system on the government, and thus on my life, that I get annoyed. Keep your dirty hands off my belief system, and keep your self-important belief system off my life.
I don't know why you're commenting on arhaeological, and other, evidence linking scriptural writings to historical events. I never said anything about the facts or lack thereof in the Bible, so you're on a tangent all by yourself.
As for your point 4, you obviously missed the point -- the point of the Bible, the point of what I've said, the point of trying to live with your fellows, the point of this discussion at large, take your pick.
"Christian" doesn't refer to someone that goes to church any more than "car" refers to someone that goes to a garage. If you worship the Holy Trinity according to the general concepts of the Bible, with emphasis on Jesus Christ as the Messiah, you're a Christian by definition. The term "Christian" refers to "Christ", not "Pastor Bill".
Here's another clue for you:
"Separation of church and state" is shorthand for the protections of religious freedom that are found in the Constitution. I don't think anyone ever tried to claim that the specific words "separation of church and state" appeared in that august document.
Here's a final clue for you, with regard to US history and scriptural teachings:
Correlation does not necessarily imply causation (to say nothing of the fact that you've failed to support your claims statistically at all, anyway, so even correlation is in question).
Get a clue. I've provided three opportunities right here. If you "get" just one of those clues, I'll feel that I've done good work. If not, I fear I'll just have to write you off as a lost cause.
A human being in drastically different gravity than planet Earth for any period of time IS an experiment. There's a lot about how human physiology reacts to zero G (or near zero) that we don't know yet, and even spans of only a few hours can teach us something.
You're right about US government funded manned space programs. It'll take private industry to get us moving into space in a sustainable fashion that might lead to colonization.
Funny -- the last time I installed SuSE 8.0 Pro on a computer, I remember there being an option for "manual" installation before you get started. I've never tried it, though, since I never had any problems with the installation using YaST2 through about six different machines I've installed it on, with the obvious exception of sound cards and winmodems. Considering I've never used sound on any of those machines, and the only reason I needed a modem was because I was building fax servers (and hylafax doesn't like winmodems), that was hardly a problem for me.
I can't imagine 8.2 would be that much different from 8.0; didn't it have the option for a "manual" installation?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a little mystified by the common belief that more idiots voting will fix anything. The problem isn't a low voter turnout: it's a low incidence of self-education about politics, and a low incidence of the ability to reason clearly, that is the problem with the US electorate.
I don't think I can agree with that characterization of O'Rourke. Possibly the most critical piece of political literature for anyone going into politics (or planning to vote) to read is his book Parliament of Whores (Copyright 1991), which he primarily wrote while he was the White House correspondent for Rolling Stone (roughly a decade after he left National Lampoon).
Frankly, I'm opposed to the entire concept of forced distribution — which is essentially what the GPL is all about. I'd be happiest with a license that is the rights-equivalent of the new BSD license, but with Copyleft protection (i.e., you can't relicense the code or derivative works). A true right, after all, is not something that is forced: it's something that is protected. GPL tries to "force" rights.
Actually, I'd be happiest if everything in the world were public domain so I wouldn't have to deal with all this licensing crap at all. Toward that end, I actually created my own license, which I use for every original work I create. Its purpose is to provide a sort of "protected public domain" with explicit in-license "reminder" to provide proper attribution. It's intended to be applicable to any copyrightable work (not just software), and includes protection against patent entanglements. In the interests of cleverness, of course, I had to use a pun in the name, so I called it Credit as Credit's Due CopyWrite , or CCD CopyWrite for short.
In the long run, I figure this is exactly the sort of thing we need — protecting everyone's rights, rather than just protecting one group's rights and inventing new "rights" to assign to that group as much as the law will allow.
I agree — both with this, and (more importantly, perhaps) with the substance of your post that begins with a comment about missing the point of freedom. There's one thing here, though, with which I disagree:
In point of fact, it is broken. It's just not broken in the way the FSF thinks it is, or in any manner that GPLv3 is likely to fix. If anything, v3 makes it worse.
The proof is in the pudding, as they say. We're now seeing the FSF take up tactics similar to those of the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft (the "Great Satan" itself). In particular, the Free Software Foundation has taken to making legal threats to small Linux distribution projects . I'm not even talking about Windows knock-off source-restricting distributions like Linspire — I'm talking about community-supported and fully open-source distributions. They're being threatened with legal action for violation of the GPL thanks to GPLv2 terms that make it absurdly difficult for a grass-roots project to get started and remain financially sustainable.
Things are likely to only get worse from here. In addition to failing to solve any actual problems with most of the changes (though addressing patents is important, and at least that part of the proposed update wasn't entirely misconceived), v3 introduces stronger language supporting some of its failings and new problems. The entire exercise has become wildly absurd, and we're rapidly approaching a point where "free" software's worst enemy might be the FSF, with the GPL as its primary weapon. Using the GPL, according to clauses related to source code availability support requirement clauses, essentially mandates the expenditure of a fair bit of money by anyone wishing to distribute GPLed software. The amount of money involved (we're talking about three years of source code availability support beyond the last distributed binary) in maintaining source versions and distributing them for every single software binary distributed over the last three years effectively makes a fully grass-roots up to date derivative distro a pipe dream (or a legal nightmare waiting to happen if the money isn't spent).
Much as I love the Free/Libre/Open Source Software development model, I don't much like the GPL and the version of that development model it promises us via its terms. I never have, really — but now, the problems of the GPL have become a matter of practice, and not just theory, thanks to the overzealous "defense" of "free" software by the FSF.
(snip a bunch of irrelevant crap about the holy trinity) Oh, so you admit they're all mentioned. Great! (snip a bunch of really fruity nonsense about government) You mentioned Nazis. Godwin's Law has been invoked. You lose. Have a good day. It's really difficult to believe that you actually buy all you're selling. It's even more difficult to believe you try to sell this crap and have a positive Karma.
Exactly. I wish I had some mod points right now . . .
DRM isn't evil. What's evil is the fraud that so commonly accompanies it, and the corporate business law that allows the people committing such fraudulent acts to get away with their deceptions.
You must REALLY LIKE wanton flamebaiting, then.
He says poe-tay-toe, you say poe-tah-toe.
What Bible are you reading? I recall specific mentions of God, of a holy spirit, and of Jesus. There's your Trinity right there. I also recall specific mentions of Jesus being born (Christmas, though they got the date wrong), being resurrected (thus the "ressurection[sic]" to which you refer, and thus Easter Sunday, though again they got the date wrong), and a Day of Rest (thus Sunday, or Saturday, depending on which religious denomination's weekly calendar you're reading).
You say "You talk about protection of religious freedoms but are hostile to anyone else who has different beliefs than yours," but I honestly have no idea where you get that nonsense. It's your attempts to mold government in your narrow religious image that makes me hostile, not the religious beliefs behind it. Call yourself a Baptist, a nondenominational Christian (which is what you'd be calling yourself if you knew what the term "Christian" meant, I think), a Satanist, Asatru, Hindu, Taoist, Voudun, atheist, agnostic, or Ferrotheist -- I don't care. I'm just as likely to buy you a drink and talk philosophy with you regardless, all else being equal. It's when you start trying to impose a metaphysical belief system on the government, and thus on my life, that I get annoyed. Keep your dirty hands off my belief system, and keep your self-important belief system off my life.
I don't know why you're commenting on arhaeological, and other, evidence linking scriptural writings to historical events. I never said anything about the facts or lack thereof in the Bible, so you're on a tangent all by yourself.
As for your point 4, you obviously missed the point -- the point of the Bible, the point of what I've said, the point of trying to live with your fellows, the point of this discussion at large, take your pick.
Here's a clue for you:
"Christian" doesn't refer to someone that goes to church any more than "car" refers to someone that goes to a garage. If you worship the Holy Trinity according to the general concepts of the Bible, with emphasis on Jesus Christ as the Messiah, you're a Christian by definition. The term "Christian" refers to "Christ", not "Pastor Bill".
Here's another clue for you:
"Separation of church and state" is shorthand for the protections of religious freedom that are found in the Constitution. I don't think anyone ever tried to claim that the specific words "separation of church and state" appeared in that august document.
Here's a final clue for you, with regard to US history and scriptural teachings:
Correlation does not necessarily imply causation (to say nothing of the fact that you've failed to support your claims statistically at all, anyway, so even correlation is in question).
Get a clue. I've provided three opportunities right here. If you "get" just one of those clues, I'll feel that I've done good work. If not, I fear I'll just have to write you off as a lost cause.
You had me until you got to the "throw out separation of church and state, force everyone to be Christians" part.
It's a bureaucracy. Their effective mission statement is budget justification.
A human being in drastically different gravity than planet Earth for any period of time IS an experiment. There's a lot about how human physiology reacts to zero G (or near zero) that we don't know yet, and even spans of only a few hours can teach us something.
You're right about US government funded manned space programs. It'll take private industry to get us moving into space in a sustainable fashion that might lead to colonization.
Funny -- the last time I installed SuSE 8.0 Pro on a computer, I remember there being an option for "manual" installation before you get started. I've never tried it, though, since I never had any problems with the installation using YaST2 through about six different machines I've installed it on, with the obvious exception of sound cards and winmodems. Considering I've never used sound on any of those machines, and the only reason I needed a modem was because I was building fax servers (and hylafax doesn't like winmodems), that was hardly a problem for me.
I can't imagine 8.2 would be that much different from 8.0; didn't it have the option for a "manual" installation?