No, they carry tazers to disable suspects that need to be quickly subdued. You don't walk up and tazer somebody who's throwing bombs and shooting at you.
Oh please. If I write some code, compile it, and give away the binaries or offer them for sale it's not infringing on anybody's rights. If I hold a gun to your head and make you use it I'm infringing significantly more important rights than your "right" to tinker with someone else's work.
That's pretty naive. You may have worked out some kind of trust with Google (I certainly haven't), but the majority of Google's product either don't care or don't know. The majority of Google users don't think about how much information Google has on them, how it's used, or how it could be used. Google doesn't have any business incentive at all to be "good," only to not be so obvious about what they're doing that the mainstream takes notice. Google has not been uniformly good. They've already been caught willfully disregarding users' explicit privacy requests (the Safari circumvention).
You say you trust Google. So who's in charge of Google? Your friends Schmidt, Page and Brin hold negligible portions of Google. Check out the major holders: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=GOOG+Major+Holders. You're actually trusting Fidelity Investments and Vanguard.
Sorry, I think I replied to the wrong post. There was somebody who said that every project should at least carry a statement of warranty and liability, lest the poster get sued.
In this case I think you've pointed out precisely what people are after: if it doesn't have a pile of legalese tacked on somewhere it's for individuals to play with. If you want to go and use it for profit you need to talk to the author and work out an agreement.
That's one of the things that bothers me about the GPL, particularly v3. The FSF has admitted some of the provisions are hinderances, but they want the GPL to be popular, so they've compromised their position and put in exceptions.
So if I'm Cisco and I'm making a router with GPL code for "home" use I need to make it user updatable, but if I'm making a router for "business" use, it doesn't have to be? What if I just label all my products "enterprise" and let the home users think they're getting the good stuff?
Personally, if I don't want something used for commercial purposes I'll license it explicitly that way. If I want to protect the integrity of my code itself but I don't mind linking I'll use the LGPL. If I don't care at all I'll pick a BSD-ish license, or do like "the kids do," apparently, and just post it on GitHub as is.
I don't see what's paranoid about it. Google is a major public corporation with a responsibility to increase shareholder value. Additionally, their business is selling you stuff (on behalf of other corporations). Everyone should be far more concerned about the kind and amount of data they give Google. Whether they sell it to third parties or just use it on behalf of those third parties seems pretty minor.
The GPLv3 requires that you be able to modify the running code as well. It could well be a security concern for, say, an ATM, if it has to have a user accessible way to modify the code it's running.
If I scrawl some code on a bathroom stall and you use it for something, it doesn't work, and you can sue me, you have a seriously broken system. I'm not American. And gladder of it every time something like this comes up.
Selling something implicitly warrants its use. Explicitly warranting its use warrants its use. Uploading some code to a repository in a personal account doesn't, regardless of whether that account has safeguards to keep stupid people out.
The BSD, LGPL, not for commercial use, and other such licenses seem to me to be a good licenses. The GPL really strikes me as being kind of a bait and switch by Stallman to try to get everyone to buy into his philosophy.
He said it's not a "free software license". Not a "Free Software license."
Free Software is Stallman's definition of free, and the GPL is such a license. You can look it up on the web site. On the other hand, the GPL is not as free as other licenses. It gives away fewer of the reserved rights of the copyright owner than other licenses.
The BSD license guarantees that just as much. The difference is that it doesn't guarantee that you can do anything you want with a modified version of the software that was never BSD licensed in the first place. The GPL addresses that issue by removing the freedom for someone to create such a thing in the first place.
Yeah, that's NOT a good argument. Apple contributes to or created a bunch of BSD licensed projects, as the other reply pointed out. The part of OS X that is not open is Aqua, which is the equivalent of X and was never BSD licensed. If Mach, and all those other projects, had been GPL licensed Apple would never have used them, and never have contributed to them. CUPS in particular really benefitted when Apple bought it and hired Michael Sweet to develop it. WebKit also took off when Apple got involved, and now Google.
5 largest notable lakes by surface area in California (US State) 1 Salton Sea 950 km^2 2 Lake Tahoe 499 km^2 3 Goose Lake 380 km^2 4 Honey Lake 190 km^2 5 Mono Lake 180 km^2
No. If you don't like science and tech news, piss off. Some of us like learning about this stuff for reasons beyond wanting to play angry birds and tweet longer between charges.
There have been studies, controlled in a variety of ways, of gun ownership and violence. Even purely observational studies, although they're not the best evidence, do contribute evidence. Evidence that is considerably better than the anecdotes the OP was railing against, which are essentially the same as the unsupported arguments given by anti-gun control proponents.
However, if you want definitive evidence, there's nothing like an experiment. There have already been experiments done where individual US states have enacted tougher gun control laws. They have less gun violence. Perhaps a bigger experiment needs to be tried... a longitudinal one. Take a country that has fairly lax gun control, a fairly high rate of gun violence, and good gun violence statistics. Say, the US. Enact tough gun control laws. Continue to gather gun-violence statistics for the next, oh, twenty or thirty years. Analyze.
So it is a silly metaphor then: the US government isn't giving away guns and bullets, therefore there's already a cost associated with exercising that right. A small additional one to help reduce the harm you might do to others exercising that right isn't anything new, sinister, or unconstitutional. The right to travel freely is not enumerated in the US constitution but I doubt anyone would seriously deny Americans have it. Yet the US government hasn't made airfare, or any other transportation, free. In fact, transportation is significantly more expensive because of taxes, safety regulations, workplace health and safety regulations, handicap access.... I guess, if you like legal games, every gun could be required to be sold inside an approved gun locker, with an approved trigger lock, for occupational health and safety reasons.
Personally I think you guys get way too hung up on protecting rights that most of the world doesn't even agree are rights at all, and don't take nearly enough interest in protecting the ones that everyone else thinks are fundamental.
So encrypt your e-mail. The medium certainly allows for it, and it's not hard to do. We generally transfer sensitive data by SFTP or equivalents because they're too big for e-mail, which is also easy. Encryption is a pain with snail mail. And snail mail definitely does get lost, stolen and intercepted. In many places it's left outside in a box, fully accessible to anyone on the street! Certified mail is a little better, but it's still more expensive, slower and more insecure than an encrypted electronic channel. Legal requirements are poor evidence for which system is better - courts still trust ink-on-paper signatures. Photocopied or faxed signatures even.
A cheque IS nothing but instructions for a bank transfer. It's a piece of paper with a note telling two banks (or one bank with two accounts) that they should transfer some funds between themselves. In Canada you can send an Interac transfer to someone's e-mail address. They get an e-mail with a number, your name, the amount, a message if you wrote one, and a password hint if you wrote one (you don't have to). The receiver then goes his bank, puts in the information and the password, which he either knows from the hint or you've told him through other channels, and voila, done. The Europeans and Australians (I think) have been swapping transfer numbers for ages, although that system (as far as I'm familiar with it) seems a little less secure than the Interac one, but probably no less secure than cheques. Cheque fraud is as old a cheques. They've made hit movies about it. Probably some in black and white.
You're imposing artificial restraints on e-mail. It CAN be encrypted, there's no shortage of tools to do so. There are also lots of other electronic tools for transferring things securely. And lots of electronic signature schemes. Yet you compare clear text e-mail to certified mail... comparing the most insecure possible version of e-mail with the most secure possible version of snail mail isn't exactly a level playing field.
Personally, I often send letters written with a fountain pen from far corners of the world. People love getting them. But I don't fool myself into thinking letter mail is secure, convenient or irreplaceable. Neither does our post office - they've gotten into electronic document delivery, among other things. But they still operate a decent package delivery service with anything from two week to two or three day nationwide delivery (next day in region), depending on how much you want to pay.
I'm sorry. I'm not American. I understand what you're implying, but it just sounds silly.
To carry your metaphor to its logical conclusion, the government requires that employers allow employees to vote with no financial penalty so that everyone can fulfil their democratic responsibilities regardless of wealth. If you truly believe that gun ownership is equivalent to voting then you should support a (socialist!) program by your government to issue firearms and associated equipment (including protective measures) to every eligible American, and train everybody to use them. I believe Switzerland takes this approach: mandatory military service, at the end of which you have the option to take your weapon with you. I also seem to remember they have lower gun mortality than the US does.
Aether never left. At best it took a short hiatus.
Quantum field theory describes fields that pervade the universe. All matter and energy particles are excitations in these fields. General relativity describes space-time as something that can be distorted by gravity. Between the two of them they encompass all of modern fundamental physics.
The difference is that the current big bang theory requires the existence of the laws of physics and a quantum fluctuation with about the energy equivalent of 13 lbs of matter.
Most god theories require a sentient, frequently omniscient and omnipotent, entity capable of creating the entire universe. Judeo-Christian-related faiths also require that this omniscient, omnipotent entity likes to meddle in his creations' lives but suddenly decided to be a lot more discreet around 2000 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they carry tazers to disable suspects that need to be quickly subdued. You don't walk up and tazer somebody who's throwing bombs and shooting at you.
Oh please. If I write some code, compile it, and give away the binaries or offer them for sale it's not infringing on anybody's rights. If I hold a gun to your head and make you use it I'm infringing significantly more important rights than your "right" to tinker with someone else's work.
That's pretty naive. You may have worked out some kind of trust with Google (I certainly haven't), but the majority of Google's product either don't care or don't know. The majority of Google users don't think about how much information Google has on them, how it's used, or how it could be used. Google doesn't have any business incentive at all to be "good," only to not be so obvious about what they're doing that the mainstream takes notice. Google has not been uniformly good. They've already been caught willfully disregarding users' explicit privacy requests (the Safari circumvention).
You say you trust Google. So who's in charge of Google? Your friends Schmidt, Page and Brin hold negligible portions of Google. Check out the major holders: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=GOOG+Major+Holders. You're actually trusting Fidelity Investments and Vanguard.
Sorry, I think I replied to the wrong post. There was somebody who said that every project should at least carry a statement of warranty and liability, lest the poster get sued.
In this case I think you've pointed out precisely what people are after: if it doesn't have a pile of legalese tacked on somewhere it's for individuals to play with. If you want to go and use it for profit you need to talk to the author and work out an agreement.
That's one of the things that bothers me about the GPL, particularly v3. The FSF has admitted some of the provisions are hinderances, but they want the GPL to be popular, so they've compromised their position and put in exceptions.
So if I'm Cisco and I'm making a router with GPL code for "home" use I need to make it user updatable, but if I'm making a router for "business" use, it doesn't have to be? What if I just label all my products "enterprise" and let the home users think they're getting the good stuff?
Personally, if I don't want something used for commercial purposes I'll license it explicitly that way. If I want to protect the integrity of my code itself but I don't mind linking I'll use the LGPL. If I don't care at all I'll pick a BSD-ish license, or do like "the kids do," apparently, and just post it on GitHub as is.
I don't see what's paranoid about it. Google is a major public corporation with a responsibility to increase shareholder value. Additionally, their business is selling you stuff (on behalf of other corporations). Everyone should be far more concerned about the kind and amount of data they give Google. Whether they sell it to third parties or just use it on behalf of those third parties seems pretty minor.
The GPLv3 requires that you be able to modify the running code as well. It could well be a security concern for, say, an ATM, if it has to have a user accessible way to modify the code it's running.
If I scrawl some code on a bathroom stall and you use it for something, it doesn't work, and you can sue me, you have a seriously broken system. I'm not American. And gladder of it every time something like this comes up.
Selling something implicitly warrants its use. Explicitly warranting its use warrants its use. Uploading some code to a repository in a personal account doesn't, regardless of whether that account has safeguards to keep stupid people out.
Or trying to link against a library.
The BSD, LGPL, not for commercial use, and other such licenses seem to me to be a good licenses. The GPL really strikes me as being kind of a bait and switch by Stallman to try to get everyone to buy into his philosophy.
He said it's not a "free software license". Not a "Free Software license."
Free Software is Stallman's definition of free, and the GPL is such a license. You can look it up on the web site. On the other hand, the GPL is not as free as other licenses. It gives away fewer of the reserved rights of the copyright owner than other licenses.
The BSD license guarantees that just as much. The difference is that it doesn't guarantee that you can do anything you want with a modified version of the software that was never BSD licensed in the first place. The GPL addresses that issue by removing the freedom for someone to create such a thing in the first place.
Yeah, that's NOT a good argument. Apple contributes to or created a bunch of BSD licensed projects, as the other reply pointed out. The part of OS X that is not open is Aqua, which is the equivalent of X and was never BSD licensed. If Mach, and all those other projects, had been GPL licensed Apple would never have used them, and never have contributed to them. CUPS in particular really benefitted when Apple bought it and hired Michael Sweet to develop it. WebKit also took off when Apple got involved, and now Google.
Let's see:
Looks like they fixed it.
"FYI - Google would be utterly stupid to allow merchants to spam users. Or even sell their data to them."
Of course they would. That's what Google does to make money.
It's called "engineering." What you're talking about is called "consumer goods."
Perhaps you'd be happier browsing Newegg.com?
No. If you don't like science and tech news, piss off. Some of us like learning about this stuff for reasons beyond wanting to play angry birds and tweet longer between charges.
There have been studies, controlled in a variety of ways, of gun ownership and violence. Even purely observational studies, although they're not the best evidence, do contribute evidence. Evidence that is considerably better than the anecdotes the OP was railing against, which are essentially the same as the unsupported arguments given by anti-gun control proponents.
However, if you want definitive evidence, there's nothing like an experiment. There have already been experiments done where individual US states have enacted tougher gun control laws. They have less gun violence. Perhaps a bigger experiment needs to be tried... a longitudinal one. Take a country that has fairly lax gun control, a fairly high rate of gun violence, and good gun violence statistics. Say, the US. Enact tough gun control laws. Continue to gather gun-violence statistics for the next, oh, twenty or thirty years. Analyze.
So it is a silly metaphor then: the US government isn't giving away guns and bullets, therefore there's already a cost associated with exercising that right. A small additional one to help reduce the harm you might do to others exercising that right isn't anything new, sinister, or unconstitutional. The right to travel freely is not enumerated in the US constitution but I doubt anyone would seriously deny Americans have it. Yet the US government hasn't made airfare, or any other transportation, free. In fact, transportation is significantly more expensive because of taxes, safety regulations, workplace health and safety regulations, handicap access.... I guess, if you like legal games, every gun could be required to be sold inside an approved gun locker, with an approved trigger lock, for occupational health and safety reasons.
Personally I think you guys get way too hung up on protecting rights that most of the world doesn't even agree are rights at all, and don't take nearly enough interest in protecting the ones that everyone else thinks are fundamental.
So encrypt your e-mail. The medium certainly allows for it, and it's not hard to do. We generally transfer sensitive data by SFTP or equivalents because they're too big for e-mail, which is also easy. Encryption is a pain with snail mail. And snail mail definitely does get lost, stolen and intercepted. In many places it's left outside in a box, fully accessible to anyone on the street! Certified mail is a little better, but it's still more expensive, slower and more insecure than an encrypted electronic channel. Legal requirements are poor evidence for which system is better - courts still trust ink-on-paper signatures. Photocopied or faxed signatures even.
A cheque IS nothing but instructions for a bank transfer. It's a piece of paper with a note telling two banks (or one bank with two accounts) that they should transfer some funds between themselves. In Canada you can send an Interac transfer to someone's e-mail address. They get an e-mail with a number, your name, the amount, a message if you wrote one, and a password hint if you wrote one (you don't have to). The receiver then goes his bank, puts in the information and the password, which he either knows from the hint or you've told him through other channels, and voila, done. The Europeans and Australians (I think) have been swapping transfer numbers for ages, although that system (as far as I'm familiar with it) seems a little less secure than the Interac one, but probably no less secure than cheques. Cheque fraud is as old a cheques. They've made hit movies about it. Probably some in black and white.
You're imposing artificial restraints on e-mail. It CAN be encrypted, there's no shortage of tools to do so. There are also lots of other electronic tools for transferring things securely. And lots of electronic signature schemes. Yet you compare clear text e-mail to certified mail... comparing the most insecure possible version of e-mail with the most secure possible version of snail mail isn't exactly a level playing field.
Personally, I often send letters written with a fountain pen from far corners of the world. People love getting them. But I don't fool myself into thinking letter mail is secure, convenient or irreplaceable. Neither does our post office - they've gotten into electronic document delivery, among other things. But they still operate a decent package delivery service with anything from two week to two or three day nationwide delivery (next day in region), depending on how much you want to pay.
I'm sorry. I'm not American. I understand what you're implying, but it just sounds silly.
To carry your metaphor to its logical conclusion, the government requires that employers allow employees to vote with no financial penalty so that everyone can fulfil their democratic responsibilities regardless of wealth. If you truly believe that gun ownership is equivalent to voting then you should support a (socialist!) program by your government to issue firearms and associated equipment (including protective measures) to every eligible American, and train everybody to use them. I believe Switzerland takes this approach: mandatory military service, at the end of which you have the option to take your weapon with you. I also seem to remember they have lower gun mortality than the US does.
Aether never left. At best it took a short hiatus.
Quantum field theory describes fields that pervade the universe. All matter and energy particles are excitations in these fields. General relativity describes space-time as something that can be distorted by gravity. Between the two of them they encompass all of modern fundamental physics.
The difference is that the current big bang theory requires the existence of the laws of physics and a quantum fluctuation with about the energy equivalent of 13 lbs of matter.
Most god theories require a sentient, frequently omniscient and omnipotent, entity capable of creating the entire universe. Judeo-Christian-related faiths also require that this omniscient, omnipotent entity likes to meddle in his creations' lives but suddenly decided to be a lot more discreet around 2000 years ago.
You know the statistics support gun control right? Wealthy countries with more gun control than the US have lower fatal homicide and suicide rates.
Mass shootings are anecdotal, on both sides. There are real statistics, and they're not on your side.
"do you really trust sending legal documents and contracts via email?"
Better than snail mail.
"Can you send checks via email?"
Yes. Oh, I don't live in the US though. You guys still can't do this?
Canadian regulations:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/storage-entreposage-eng.htm
Seems reasonable. If you can afford the gun you should be able to afford to secure it.