I'm certain this has consequences for innovation and economic motivation, according to the dire forecasts by intellectual property holding groups (who are clearly experts on the issues involved). Can someone elucidate on what we as a society are giving up by not allowing inventors exclusive rights to their inventions?
Field sobriety tests are designed to determine whether the driver's reaction time and coordination are within expected parameters and that they are coherent enough to answer questions. If they are, then who cares what they're on?
Understand these basic facts:
1. It is legal to acquire a monopoly
Wrong. Read the Sherman Antitrust act. It is illegal to attempt to monopolize a market. Gaining a monopoly by accident or coincidence is fine, but not otherwise.
So, driving while intoxicated (doesn't matter with *what*) is okay!?
Legality does not imply the absence of regulation. Alcohol is legal (though some would prefer it not be) and yet it is regulated. Legality means you don't get put in cuffs when a cop sees you blazing.
As for opiates, ect., there's no way in hell those should be legal. If you have *any* idea what those do to people, you should know how terrible they are.
I haven't heard a convincing argument why people should not be allowed to engage in self-destructive behavior, and why it is society's responsibility to spend money on saving them from themselves (or additionally to hand them welfare checks while they engage in such behavior).
Frankly, I don't buy any of the decriminalization arguements. And yes, I know how some argue that we're inconsistant because we allow smoking. Frankly, I would prefer we outlaw that, too.
See above. Smoking anything has some other issues attached to it, namely the littering and air pollution. In the privacy of one's home or on private property whose owner has allowed it, I don't know of a convincing reason why moral crusaders such as yourself should be able to prevent people from engaging in such activities.
I agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that chemical tests are worse than useless. There have been various efforts to instate policy of placing people who test positive for marijuana under DUI arrest.
Everyone cheers that it's a good thing, but it's completely unfair to the responsible marijuana user. The active ingredient is detectable in the body for several weeks after the period of last ingestion. This doesn't imply that the user is impaired or even high in the slightest, yet it would be enough to warrant a DUI under such conditions. Such a policy is simply discrimination and does nothing to make the roads safer.
It'd be nice if some lsh folks would join the real world and implement PAM. Ideological opinions about the state of PAM are irrelevant because at the moment, there is no alternative for ssh/ldap/kerberos/nfs/afs/whatever integration.
There are essentially three types of drugs, of which all the regulated ones fall into one category or another.
The first is drugs where dependence is chiefly psychological (alcohol, most psychedelics, marijuana, X). The second is drugs which have a strong physical component to dependence (nicotine, cocaine and derivatives, opiates). The last is drugs which induce violent and unpredictable behavior in the average user (meth, PCP, Ketamine) and are usually dependence forming.
The first category should not be illegal for any reason. However, I like the idea of denying welfare checks to folks who continually test positive for those drugs. I also like the idea of taxation at the state level to avoid such drugs becoming consumer staples. (Think of it as a luxury tax.)
The second category should be legal simply to reduce the criminal profit motive;criminal action from the second category almost invariably is a result of an addict not being able to find a 'fix'. Taxation proceeds from the first category should go towards providing rehab clinics with funding in order to get people off the junk once they go and get hooked (if they are the 10% that is susceptible to dependence).
The third category should only be available via the medical community and prescribed as necessary, but with general distribution regulated by the states. These drugs are so dangerous and unpredictable across the set of users that just allowing their use might present a clear danger to others.
I believe the above notes form a basis for a socially responsible and freedom enhancing drug policy.
Note that this is all contingent on getting the federal government out of regulating intrastate matters, and the idea that government should not regulate your own body, but is responsible for preventing you from doing harm to others through your poor choices. People are going to use drugs and fuck up their lives, just like they always have even within prohibition. Why waste money and make criminals of folks who only wish to harm themselves?
It is absolutely prohibited as of the 1971 Controlled Substances Act. Before that point, it was possible to get tax stamps for it, but there was some complication (by design) that would have forced you to self-incriminate in order to do so.
When a peice of code, lets say, libfoo, is under the GPL, that means the structures in memory that libfoo defines, the method signatures, etc, are all peices of libfoo. They are copyrighted works released under the GPL.
Yeah, so what? BTW, most of these can be reused as trivial works.
Now, lets say you want to write a peice of software to USE libfoo. To write this software, it's required to import some of libfoo's headers. These headers are copyrighted. When you compile your software, even though it links dynamically at runtime, it still retains this copyrighted memory structure information in the final binary image.
Wrong. Structure definitions, function prototypes, and macros are not copyrightable. There is case law on the issue, and it simply makes common sense. They are pieces of information used by the compiler only at compile time when it is generating code or at link time, and do not remain in any significant form in the compiled program. You can be silly about it and define functions in.h files (or more practical example, use templates), but there is a clear distinction between what is interpreted as machine operations to be compiled into executable code, and what constitutes information that is used only by the compiler at compile time.
This is a major peice of contention... and I would say this IS how the GPL works, even though most people ignore it. WHy would I say that? Because of the LGPL, which was designed SPECIFICALLY to address the issue by putting in writing that it was OKAY to use LGPL libraries in a non-LGPLed program.
You can say it until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't mean it's not wishful thinking. The LGPL is intended to cover libraries of executable code that are combined with a specific program to produce a resultant work. There is nothing that involves (or should involve) header files, because they are not a part of the executable.
The GPL, when used for libraries, is free in much the same way that Communist China is free. If you agree with their philosophy, you get a lot of freedom. If not, consider yourself dead.
Your communist-zeitgest rhetoric is a nice but fallacious attempt at obscuring the intent of the GPL. Open source software development is an economic problem. Many people want to take the software and profit from it by removing rights that were granted to them, but the authors want to be compensated for their work in one simple way: by demanding that anyone else who improves and redistributes the software not remove the rights that they granted; if that were to happen, they would lose their motivation for sharing their software in the first place because the software would be distributed against their wishes.
Anyone is free to take the code and do what they will with it, as long as the original rights which were granted to the recipient are not removed. How exactly does this preservation of freedom for all users of the software amount to red communism? I fail to see the logic. After all, you're perfectly free not to use it and to develop your own, if your wish is to place more restrictions on the users of your software.
"If your organisation uses a piece of open source code and that code contains or in any way touches proprietary code that you're using, then, potentially, there's the obligation to make the proprietary code available to the rest of the open source community"
Well, he's right in a way. Potentially, if you distributed that code to some recipient and didn't include the full source code for your proprietary app, the only way to satisfy the GPL is to make a written offer valid for any third party for the complete source code.
licences only apply to recipients not to the whole world.
Yes, but 3b of the GPL applies to the whole world assuming you didn't satisfy 3a or 3c.
Re:"Derivative" is a legal term, not a technical t
on
Open Source Licensing
·
· Score: 1
A pointer in code, or a dynamic link would be the same.
The executable itself doesn't have to be dynamically linked to a shared object. You can use the shared object loader from your code (dlopen, etc) to import other code into your application's address space. Arbitrary code can be included from arbitrary libraries at runtime.
Since this is done on the user's system after distribution, you'd have a really hard time arguing that the GPL is even involved.
They also base their argument on "shared address space", which seems to me to be a quite arbitrary boundary. Every system call to the kernel at least in part runs in a shared address space with the application, but no one in their right mind considers all applications to be derivative works of the kernel.
Huh? A system call traps into kernel code, which is self-contained in a completely different part of memory from the application. There is no part of the kernel that runs in the process's memory space. Perhaps you were thinking about the syscall stubs in libc, but just because user libraries have system call wrappers doesn't mean that there is any intermingling of the process and the kernel, either in address space or in code.
At the time I posted that, you were modded -1 Troll, presumably because you asked for a reference to information which would back up the dogma which the grand-grandparent posted. I found that ridiculous.
So, was the stolen code returned, so Cisco can continue development on it? It must have been terrible for them to have to hold up production on the missing code while the thieves were tracked down.
"how do you deal with the problem that it is hard to know what good science is?"
In what way is it hard to know what good science is? Simply apply Sagan's baloney detection toolkit, or ask the following simple questions:
Is the hypothesis falsifiable?
Was there a placebo/control group used?
Are the experimental results published and available for open scrutiny and experimental reproduction?
The biases of the scientist in terms of his personal beliefs and his funding are irrelevant, because if the scientific method is followed, the results are valid science in any case. Unfortunately, many people ignore key components of the scientific method and then attempt to pass off their results as science, which weakens the credibility of real scientists in the popular view.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm certain this has consequences for innovation and economic motivation, according to the dire forecasts by intellectual property holding groups (who are clearly experts on the issues involved). Can someone elucidate on what we as a society are giving up by not allowing inventors exclusive rights to their inventions?
Field sobriety tests are designed to determine whether the driver's reaction time and coordination are within expected parameters and that they are coherent enough to answer questions. If they are, then who cares what they're on?
Everyone cheers that it's a good thing, but it's completely unfair to the responsible marijuana user. The active ingredient is detectable in the body for several weeks after the period of last ingestion. This doesn't imply that the user is impaired or even high in the slightest, yet it would be enough to warrant a DUI under such conditions. Such a policy is simply discrimination and does nothing to make the roads safer.
It'd be nice if some lsh folks would join the real world and implement PAM. Ideological opinions about the state of PAM are irrelevant because at the moment, there is no alternative for ssh/ldap/kerberos/nfs/afs/whatever integration.
Hey, that's pretty neat. Thanks for the link!
The first is drugs where dependence is chiefly psychological (alcohol, most psychedelics, marijuana, X). The second is drugs which have a strong physical component to dependence (nicotine, cocaine and derivatives, opiates). The last is drugs which induce violent and unpredictable behavior in the average user (meth, PCP, Ketamine) and are usually dependence forming.
The first category should not be illegal for any reason. However, I like the idea of denying welfare checks to folks who continually test positive for those drugs. I also like the idea of taxation at the state level to avoid such drugs becoming consumer staples. (Think of it as a luxury tax.)
The second category should be legal simply to reduce the criminal profit motive;criminal action from the second category almost invariably is a result of an addict not being able to find a 'fix'. Taxation proceeds from the first category should go towards providing rehab clinics with funding in order to get people off the junk once they go and get hooked (if they are the 10% that is susceptible to dependence).
The third category should only be available via the medical community and prescribed as necessary, but with general distribution regulated by the states. These drugs are so dangerous and unpredictable across the set of users that just allowing their use might present a clear danger to others.
I believe the above notes form a basis for a socially responsible and freedom enhancing drug policy.
Note that this is all contingent on getting the federal government out of regulating intrastate matters, and the idea that government should not regulate your own body, but is responsible for preventing you from doing harm to others through your poor choices. People are going to use drugs and fuck up their lives, just like they always have even within prohibition. Why waste money and make criminals of folks who only wish to harm themselves?
It is absolutely prohibited as of the 1971 Controlled Substances Act. Before that point, it was possible to get tax stamps for it, but there was some complication (by design) that would have forced you to self-incriminate in order to do so.
Do you have any references to tutorials or howtos on using gnuplot+latex to make graphs?
Anyone is free to take the code and do what they will with it, as long as the original rights which were granted to the recipient are not removed. How exactly does this preservation of freedom for all users of the software amount to red communism? I fail to see the logic. After all, you're perfectly free not to use it and to develop your own, if your wish is to place more restrictions on the users of your software.
Since this is done on the user's system after distribution, you'd have a really hard time arguing that the GPL is even involved.
runderwo@mail.win.org
Is the hypothesis falsifiable?
Was there a placebo/control group used?
Are the experimental results published and available for open scrutiny and experimental reproduction?
The biases of the scientist in terms of his personal beliefs and his funding are irrelevant, because if the scientific method is followed, the results are valid science in any case. Unfortunately, many people ignore key components of the scientific method and then attempt to pass off their results as science, which weakens the credibility of real scientists in the popular view.