More like Apple? I ran MacOS 9, so I'll attest that it did exist. This was the end of the pre-OSX era, so it was way behind the times, but it existed, and introduced Carbon (which was supported by Mac OSX for some time).
Thing is, there are class and group and race conflicts in modern society, and they have to be recognized and dealt with. Until people can be convinced not to treat people of different races, classes, economic standings, whatever, individually, as they deserve, the current conflicts and problems are going to continue. Treating people as individuals is the ideal, but when you're dealing with a white guy whose parents put him through college and a black guy who was pulled over for driving while black and given a harsh sentence for a minor drug crime, you need to recognize that they haven't been accorded the same individual rights, they haven't been allowed the same personal autonomy, and their situations in life are a lot less personal responsibility than would be ideal.
If you're carrying an operating cell phone, you're willingly surrendering location information to your provider. The reason there's no way to disable the location notification and keep the phone on is that that's not how cell phones work. The provider knows which tower you're talking to when you're on the phone, and has to know which tower can reach you if you're to get incoming calls.
Once someone else has information about you, it's their information (in the US, anyway), and the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply because it isn't your papers and effects. You've already surrendered that information to a third party.
At a dollar or two per app, I might well get a few different apps to see which is the best. If a good app for doing X is worth $10 to me, then I can run through five at $2 each to find the best.
Thing is, there's sometimes good reasons to agree not to talk about something. My employer has some trade secrets that I've agreed not to talk about. The SEC considers me an insider (I have access to a lot of interesting information that investors outside the company don't), and I'm not supposed to talk about that in public. There's no clear and obvious line between that and what I'd consider abuse.
Okay, what sorts of regulations is libertarianism supposed to put onto capitalism? Pretty much everything relevant I've read says the government enforces contracts and prevents violence, and otherwise stays out of things.
Entrapment is when the police suggest committing a crime, or push someone towards doing it. If a LEO tries to argue you into hiring a hitman, that's entrapment and grounds for acquittal if you can prove it. If a LEO shows up when you're trying to hire a hitman, and offers his or her services, that's a sting operation, and perfectly legal. The legal question is whether you were intending to commit the crime anyway.
Precious metals and stocks are valuable, but they aren't currency. Currency is what I buy stuff with, and I don't shop anywhere that will take gold or silver or 3M stock as payment. I shop lots of places that take US dollars (and occasionally one that takes pounds or euros or something like that). There are places that take Bitcoin, but so far I personally haven't noticed stores setting prices in Bitcoin, as opposed to offering to sell for Bitcoin of the value of some amount of dollars or euros or whatever.
Paper money is currency because people buy things with it. The reason it has value is that it can be exchanged for things people want. This is the exact same reason gold used to be currency: few people had that much need for gold itself, but people had confidence that they could exchange it for what they really wanted. Gold and silver tended to stay in the form of coins, and nobody has much need for coins (OK, I did use a penny as an impromptu screwdriver last week) except to buy stuff with.
Personally, we wanted a television of a particular size that looked good and wasn't too expensive, and when we went to Target the one we settled on happened to be "smart". If we had spent more time shopping, we might have found one that wasn't smart, but I don't know that it would have been less expensive overall. We haven't used any of the smart features, but we do enjoy the screen.
You can't beat the two-party system by voting for someone who won't win, either. What we would need to have something other than the current system is some sort of ranked-choice voting (implemented in my city a few years back) or some sort of proportional representation, which parties often have for delegate selection but is not as far as I know used for any elected office in the US.
In the meantime, if you want election reform, get it accepted by one of the major parties. There's not going to be any traction in a third party devoted to election reform, so it will have to be raised in the political process within one or more parties. There's a good deal of dissatisfaction with the way things are working, as shown by Sanders and Trump doing very well. This could be exploited.
My problem is that you seem to be condemning politics that can trace any line of heritage back to Marx, and thinking that is worth mentioning. You appear to be using it as a term of opprobrium, and you don't seem to care how much stems from Marx, or whether it stems from stuff that Marx got more or less right or stuff that he definitely got wrong. Do you think public education is a bad idea, because it is in the Communist Manifesto?
The Democratic Party Presidential nomination system is not rigged. Complain about the mainstream media if you like, but that's not run by the Democrats. Journalists tend to be liberal, but not necessarily Democrats, while media owners tend to be Republicans. Sanders had just as much opportunity as Clinton to campaign for delegates.
The existence of superdelegates is a move toward conservatism in nominees, and was designed to avoid another 1972. Sanders is a bit speculative as a candidate, and the Republicans would call him a socialist and all that, and so if he can't win a majority of the ordinary delegates there's really no good reason to nominate him.
I think it generates the right connotations: neo-Marxism as a theory fails in the same way that Marxism fails
You mean it lacks "scientific rigor, falsifiability, and empirical verification"? In what way does that differ from any other ideology? We've seen enough people with ideologically rigid beliefs in capitalism and democracy*. We've seen all sorts of ideologies abused by vicious and power-hungry people. Marxism is one that's been abused a lot recently, along with capitalism and fascism.
*Democracy is great. It's the basis of the best governments. It also has a tendency to fail, sometimes catastrophically, when dropped on a nation not used to it.
If equal treatment of people regardless of race or sex is neo-Marxist, BRING ON THE REVOLUTION!
To look at this another way, you appear to be claiming that some people who considered themselves neo-Marxists developed something you call "critical theory", and that this is part of what goes into some ideas that Clinton and Sanders hold for reasons you don't specifically know, and therefore they're Marxist? Do you realize how thin that reasoning is? It used to be that anyone with an ancestor from sub-Saharan Africa without many intervening generations in Europe was considered a Negro, no matter what. Do you consider anyone who has an idea traceable to Marxists to be a Marxist? Does this make everyone involved in public education a Marxist? The Communist Manifesto called for it, and hence nobody could have gotten that idea without being Marxist?
The only woman I personally know who I know had an abortion did so because contraception failed. She was on what she legitimately believed effective contraception, and therefore was not consenting to host a fetus. This is in no way analogous to pushing someone into the water, as that is an intentional act deliberately putting someone into a position of likely inconvenience and possible danger.
Simple: you change the voting system by law or constitutional amendment. As long as we have one-vote plurality-choice voting, the political process will remain as it is, although the players may change.
A license allows you to do things copyright law wouldn't let you do. The GPL itself states that you don't have to accept it, but it's likely to be the only thing permitting you to copy or redistribute the software. A EULA typically adds restrictions. Reverse engineering is fine under copyright law, but it's often banned by EULAs. If you stick to the provisions of copyright law, you can ignore the regular licenses, but in some jurisdictions, including the US, you can't ignore EULAs.
A good API typically requires creativity, and when written it isn't purely functional. Later on, use of the API would be purely functional. I don't think copyright law currently captures the nature of APIs well.
The GPL has never been all that clear on what constitutes a derivative work. From a copyright point of view, I see nothing wrong with treating the GPL like the LGPL. However, the GPL is what gives you the right to copy gfoo.so, so it's at least arguable that the definitions implied by the GPL are used, and so dynamic linking is still a no-no. Has the Affero GPL been tested in court? It's a more extreme version, requiring the Affero GPLing of server code used by an Affero GPLed web client.
The current big problem with selling eBooks appears to be the possibility of massive copying and redistribution, although not all publishers use DRM to stop it. If the books can be freely distributed and read, from the publisher's point of view it doesn't matter that only one person has the right to read it. There's still likely to be lost sales.
Slashdot Mirror
More like Apple? I ran MacOS 9, so I'll attest that it did exist. This was the end of the pre-OSX era, so it was way behind the times, but it existed, and introduced Carbon (which was supported by Mac OSX for some time).
Thing is, there are class and group and race conflicts in modern society, and they have to be recognized and dealt with. Until people can be convinced not to treat people of different races, classes, economic standings, whatever, individually, as they deserve, the current conflicts and problems are going to continue. Treating people as individuals is the ideal, but when you're dealing with a white guy whose parents put him through college and a black guy who was pulled over for driving while black and given a harsh sentence for a minor drug crime, you need to recognize that they haven't been accorded the same individual rights, they haven't been allowed the same personal autonomy, and their situations in life are a lot less personal responsibility than would be ideal.
If you're carrying an operating cell phone, you're willingly surrendering location information to your provider. The reason there's no way to disable the location notification and keep the phone on is that that's not how cell phones work. The provider knows which tower you're talking to when you're on the phone, and has to know which tower can reach you if you're to get incoming calls.
Once someone else has information about you, it's their information (in the US, anyway), and the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply because it isn't your papers and effects. You've already surrendered that information to a third party.
At a dollar or two per app, I might well get a few different apps to see which is the best. If a good app for doing X is worth $10 to me, then I can run through five at $2 each to find the best.
Which short sentences have you read about? I don't remember reading about any.
Thing is, there's sometimes good reasons to agree not to talk about something. My employer has some trade secrets that I've agreed not to talk about. The SEC considers me an insider (I have access to a lot of interesting information that investors outside the company don't), and I'm not supposed to talk about that in public. There's no clear and obvious line between that and what I'd consider abuse.
Okay, what sorts of regulations is libertarianism supposed to put onto capitalism? Pretty much everything relevant I've read says the government enforces contracts and prevents violence, and otherwise stays out of things.
Entrapment is when the police suggest committing a crime, or push someone towards doing it. If a LEO tries to argue you into hiring a hitman, that's entrapment and grounds for acquittal if you can prove it. If a LEO shows up when you're trying to hire a hitman, and offers his or her services, that's a sting operation, and perfectly legal. The legal question is whether you were intending to commit the crime anyway.
Precious metals and stocks are valuable, but they aren't currency. Currency is what I buy stuff with, and I don't shop anywhere that will take gold or silver or 3M stock as payment. I shop lots of places that take US dollars (and occasionally one that takes pounds or euros or something like that). There are places that take Bitcoin, but so far I personally haven't noticed stores setting prices in Bitcoin, as opposed to offering to sell for Bitcoin of the value of some amount of dollars or euros or whatever.
Paper money is currency because people buy things with it. The reason it has value is that it can be exchanged for things people want. This is the exact same reason gold used to be currency: few people had that much need for gold itself, but people had confidence that they could exchange it for what they really wanted. Gold and silver tended to stay in the form of coins, and nobody has much need for coins (OK, I did use a penny as an impromptu screwdriver last week) except to buy stuff with.
Personally, we wanted a television of a particular size that looked good and wasn't too expensive, and when we went to Target the one we settled on happened to be "smart". If we had spent more time shopping, we might have found one that wasn't smart, but I don't know that it would have been less expensive overall. We haven't used any of the smart features, but we do enjoy the screen.
You can't beat the two-party system by voting for someone who won't win, either. What we would need to have something other than the current system is some sort of ranked-choice voting (implemented in my city a few years back) or some sort of proportional representation, which parties often have for delegate selection but is not as far as I know used for any elected office in the US.
In the meantime, if you want election reform, get it accepted by one of the major parties. There's not going to be any traction in a third party devoted to election reform, so it will have to be raised in the political process within one or more parties. There's a good deal of dissatisfaction with the way things are working, as shown by Sanders and Trump doing very well. This could be exploited.
My problem is that you seem to be condemning politics that can trace any line of heritage back to Marx, and thinking that is worth mentioning. You appear to be using it as a term of opprobrium, and you don't seem to care how much stems from Marx, or whether it stems from stuff that Marx got more or less right or stuff that he definitely got wrong. Do you think public education is a bad idea, because it is in the Communist Manifesto?
The Democratic Party Presidential nomination system is not rigged. Complain about the mainstream media if you like, but that's not run by the Democrats. Journalists tend to be liberal, but not necessarily Democrats, while media owners tend to be Republicans. Sanders had just as much opportunity as Clinton to campaign for delegates.
The existence of superdelegates is a move toward conservatism in nominees, and was designed to avoid another 1972. Sanders is a bit speculative as a candidate, and the Republicans would call him a socialist and all that, and so if he can't win a majority of the ordinary delegates there's really no good reason to nominate him.
You mean it lacks "scientific rigor, falsifiability, and empirical verification"? In what way does that differ from any other ideology? We've seen enough people with ideologically rigid beliefs in capitalism and democracy*. We've seen all sorts of ideologies abused by vicious and power-hungry people. Marxism is one that's been abused a lot recently, along with capitalism and fascism.
*Democracy is great. It's the basis of the best governments. It also has a tendency to fail, sometimes catastrophically, when dropped on a nation not used to it.
If equal treatment of people regardless of race or sex is neo-Marxist, BRING ON THE REVOLUTION!
To look at this another way, you appear to be claiming that some people who considered themselves neo-Marxists developed something you call "critical theory", and that this is part of what goes into some ideas that Clinton and Sanders hold for reasons you don't specifically know, and therefore they're Marxist? Do you realize how thin that reasoning is? It used to be that anyone with an ancestor from sub-Saharan Africa without many intervening generations in Europe was considered a Negro, no matter what. Do you consider anyone who has an idea traceable to Marxists to be a Marxist? Does this make everyone involved in public education a Marxist? The Communist Manifesto called for it, and hence nobody could have gotten that idea without being Marxist?
The only woman I personally know who I know had an abortion did so because contraception failed. She was on what she legitimately believed effective contraception, and therefore was not consenting to host a fetus. This is in no way analogous to pushing someone into the water, as that is an intentional act deliberately putting someone into a position of likely inconvenience and possible danger.
Simple: you change the voting system by law or constitutional amendment. As long as we have one-vote plurality-choice voting, the political process will remain as it is, although the players may change.
Maybe Kafka would have written more if he'd had Google for inspiration and source material.
My point of shock was when it offered to sell me a version of Minesweeper that would not have ads.
A license allows you to do things copyright law wouldn't let you do. The GPL itself states that you don't have to accept it, but it's likely to be the only thing permitting you to copy or redistribute the software. A EULA typically adds restrictions. Reverse engineering is fine under copyright law, but it's often banned by EULAs. If you stick to the provisions of copyright law, you can ignore the regular licenses, but in some jurisdictions, including the US, you can't ignore EULAs.
A good API typically requires creativity, and when written it isn't purely functional. Later on, use of the API would be purely functional. I don't think copyright law currently captures the nature of APIs well.
The GPL has never been all that clear on what constitutes a derivative work. From a copyright point of view, I see nothing wrong with treating the GPL like the LGPL. However, the GPL is what gives you the right to copy gfoo.so, so it's at least arguable that the definitions implied by the GPL are used, and so dynamic linking is still a no-no. Has the Affero GPL been tested in court? It's a more extreme version, requiring the Affero GPLing of server code used by an Affero GPLed web client.
The current big problem with selling eBooks appears to be the possibility of massive copying and redistribution, although not all publishers use DRM to stop it. If the books can be freely distributed and read, from the publisher's point of view it doesn't matter that only one person has the right to read it. There's still likely to be lost sales.
Most planes don't crash every flight. We'd be mandating something pretty expensive on a daily basis to avoid the very occasional case like MH370.
Can we sequence turtle genes and homing pigeon genes together yet?