Then perhaps free software developers should write their own kernel with a license that disallows those "parasitic closed developers" from deploying software on it.
If, as you say, they need closed developers, why should they do that?
But they won't because they need closed source software in fact the GNU project would have been an utter failure if it weren't for the preamble in the Linux kernel license that exempts software making kernel syscalls from being infected with the GPL license terms.
I suspect the MODULE_LICENSE() macro acts as the barrier between what they consider GPL kernel internals and 'boilerplate' code. GPL (and GPL/MIT hybrid) licensed code gets full access while others do not. It's not hard to write closed drivers for linux if you want to, but you'll be limited to what you can touch. You need not worry about 'infection' from GPL code just as the kernel devs don't need to worry about 'infections' from closed blobs. Just remember that nonfree modules 'taint' the kernel, so if your users have crashes, the devs will not support them nor accept bug reports. Seems fair to me as you cannot expect them to support software they don't have the source for.
you just seem incredibly ignorant of the fact that the free software movement would be completely defunct if it weren't for the ability of closed and open source developers to collaborate on the GNU/Linux platform.
What are you babbling about? All three licenses allow such collaboration. Obviously, the industry chose to involve itself with linux or, like you said, it would not be where it is today.
by 'innovation', you mean whatever snakeoil your company wants to sell using the work of others? You do know that the kernel license doesn't apply to userspace, right? Userspace libs and executables have their own licenses (GPL or otherwise).
If you think linux is a 'unix kernel' then you are seriously misinformed. It's a unix work-a-like.
Unless of course the goal is to keep the software open/modifiable by all while disallowing poaching by closed source developers. This frees the project from parasitic closed developers. They'll have to write their own code if they want to keep it closed.
History has shown us that things get bad when the boss also owns your home (and your grocery, and your car, hell even your whole town!). It's as bad as state owned everything.
When are you going to learn that you don't have a right to sex without responsibility?
When are you going to learn that repeating yourself doesn't make a better argument?
Pick the right partner or face the consequences. This applies to both men and women, but you don't want to accept that you have the responsibility and the ability to prevent an unwanted child.
So rather than make that process of responsibility more amicable for both, you'd rather keep the passive aggression and squabbling intact? Why? Just so she can continue to insulate herself for her own dumb choices at his expense?
That's part of the whole package, because that's how it works.
Why not just ban abortion then? Just tell women "have sex, have a baby, now get back in the kitchen," and tell men "go work that 16hour helljob to meet your child's needs." After all, that's how it has worked for thousands of years. It's ok for women to have choices in the outcomes of their sexual behavior but not men?
Women have always had the ability to abort; it's why the Hippocratic oath talks about not procuring an abortifacent even in Greek days. So no, it's not some "newly acquired power."
Yeah, but it wasn't the low risk (medical and social), reliable process like it is today. Equating the two is extremely fallacious.
There is no way in hell women, who are the majority of the population, will accept you having a say over what we do with our bodies, same as you would object if we started pushing for mandatory vasectomies at puberty.
Who said I did? When will you quit the strawman arguments? I said she can have (or not have) the baby if she wants, it's just selfish of her to rope him/society into paying for its upbringing without consent. This is especially egregious when coupled with all that whining about 'my body my right my choice'. You babble about responsibility but apparently only for men.
Lets just skip to the end, then, and force people to live out their lives in concrete boxes where every aspect is hypercontrolled for maximum efficiency and minimum impact on The People. One of the primary reasons people resist socialism is that it always results in some form of authoritarianism. Once something is publicly funded, that something can now be considered 'under threat' by the state, with any 'threatening' action it doesn't like conveniently deemed 'threatening' and 'curtailed,' usually with life-altering penalties. A cascade of power grabs then commences.
As a lifelong non smoker who loathes any sort of smoke, I would never want to live in your smoke free dystopian hell. There'd be too many sacrifices of liberty in too many areas.
Awards for discrimination can go up to $50,000 or more, at a simple hearing where you don't even need a lawyer. People have an incentive to behave better.
Ahh, of course you'd say something like this. When in doubt, use fear, amirite comrade?
This 'nationalist' crap will stop when globalists in each of those national structures quits trying to impose itself on the rest of the world. It's NOT just the US you know.
Once you create a situation - and in this case it's entirely voluntary on your part - you can't cry about the consequences later when you were aware of them ahead of time. Grow up and stop your whining.
When is society going to start telling women this? You know, 'empowered' single mothers who were too stupid to do the right thing and abort, figuring they could bilk it out of his (also broke and unwilling) ass? I bet a lot more of these girls would've aborted if they knew beforehand they couldn't rope him in, at least not without his legally documented consent (or valid marriage license). This is a net win for society's welfare system too.
I was suggesting a system that gives him a post conception choice as well so that neither can take advantage of the other... AFTER the mistake/accident happens. It would separate the choice of having children from the act of sex for men (like women already have), which would encourage it only when both parents are willing and able. Hopefully, she'll quit shacking up with the guys who run and gun if she wants someone to father children. Hopefully, he'll stop chasing girls on the party scene if he's looking for a decent mother for his children.
What's hypocritical is you saying that somehow you don't have the same power to prevent conception as a woman does, that somehow only the woman has a responsibility and an ability to prevent conceptions, when you know damn well you're lying because you don't want to take responsibility for controlling your own fertility. Because you think with your dick.
No I didn't say any of these things. In fact, I was talking about balancing out the recently acquired power of ending conception with a male equivalent that protects his rights while not impinging on hers. You just suck at reading comprehension or your ideological lensing is so great you only see what you want to see. Considering all your ad hominem strawmen, I'm guessing the latter.
If you didn't want a kid, what were you doing sleeping with a woman without protection who wanted to start a family?
If it's not ok to withhold abortion and rope her into marriage because of unwanted pregnancy, it is not ok for her to rope him (or just his wallet) in either. If he refuses, he should have that right (he should not have father's rights until he commits either). She should abort and/or find a guy who is actually ready for fatherhood, raise the kid on her own, or give it up for adoption. While I'll agree that using some form of protection is the best way to go, it doesn't always happen nor does it always work.
Since abortion and birth control offer pre and post conception choices, the rest of your argument is out of date, a strawman, as well as sexist and hypocritical.
If you're too stupid to take precautions, how is that not your own fault?
If it's her body, her right, her choice, then it should be her responsibility, too. If she didn't like the outcome, what was she doing sleeping with a guy without protection who didn't want to start a family?
My personal systems are perpetually upgraded. A cpu/systemboard/ram combo lasts about 5 years, gpus every 2-3, storage as needed. At the end, they enter hand-me-down states and go into secondary machines or are sold/given away. If I had to rebuy the whole machine every time, it would cost me a lot more because I'd have to buy hardware I don't really need to replace yet. I would also end up with sub optimal configurations typically offered by OEMs trying to hit price points.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say he runs twitter itself.
Well, if hillary can run a private email service, then trump can run a personal twitter account, right?
Check your fucking quantum privilege!
The real problem is the skyrocketing cost to begin with.. No wealth redistribution scheme is going to fix this.
Private sector doesn't get to 'create' jobs. That's not how it works.
Why good? Are you saying he didn't earn that money?
Ryzen has a management engine too. If you want chips without them, you're stuck on old hardware.
Then perhaps free software developers should write their own kernel with a license that disallows those "parasitic closed developers" from deploying software on it.
If, as you say, they need closed developers, why should they do that?
But they won't because they need closed source software in fact the GNU project would have been an utter failure if it weren't for the preamble in the Linux kernel license that exempts software making kernel syscalls from being infected with the GPL license terms.
I suspect the MODULE_LICENSE() macro acts as the barrier between what they consider GPL kernel internals and 'boilerplate' code. GPL (and GPL/MIT hybrid) licensed code gets full access while others do not. It's not hard to write closed drivers for linux if you want to, but you'll be limited to what you can touch. You need not worry about 'infection' from GPL code just as the kernel devs don't need to worry about 'infections' from closed blobs. Just remember that nonfree modules 'taint' the kernel, so if your users have crashes, the devs will not support them nor accept bug reports. Seems fair to me as you cannot expect them to support software they don't have the source for.
you just seem incredibly ignorant of the fact that the free software movement would be completely defunct if it weren't for the ability of closed and open source developers to collaborate on the GNU/Linux platform.
What are you babbling about? All three licenses allow such collaboration. Obviously, the industry chose to involve itself with linux or, like you said, it would not be where it is today.
Only if the russians let them keep it. It's under loan from them.
by 'innovation', you mean whatever snakeoil your company wants to sell using the work of others? You do know that the kernel license doesn't apply to userspace, right? Userspace libs and executables have their own licenses (GPL or otherwise).
If you think linux is a 'unix kernel' then you are seriously misinformed. It's a unix work-a-like.
There's a subset of symbols that nongpl kernel modules are allowed to link to.
Unless of course the goal is to keep the software open/modifiable by all while disallowing poaching by closed source developers. This frees the project from parasitic closed developers. They'll have to write their own code if they want to keep it closed.
History has shown us that things get bad when the boss also owns your home (and your grocery, and your car, hell even your whole town!). It's as bad as state owned everything.
Don't get me started on Java apps period.
Um.. ok. I haven't advocated against abortion rights, nor using protection. Lay off the feminist kool-aid powder, will ya?
When are you going to learn that you don't have a right to sex without responsibility?
When are you going to learn that repeating yourself doesn't make a better argument?
Pick the right partner or face the consequences. This applies to both men and women, but you don't want to accept that you have the responsibility and the ability to prevent an unwanted child.
So rather than make that process of responsibility more amicable for both, you'd rather keep the passive aggression and squabbling intact? Why? Just so she can continue to insulate herself for her own dumb choices at his expense?
That's part of the whole package, because that's how it works.
Why not just ban abortion then? Just tell women "have sex, have a baby, now get back in the kitchen," and tell men "go work that 16hour helljob to meet your child's needs." After all, that's how it has worked for thousands of years. It's ok for women to have choices in the outcomes of their sexual behavior but not men?
Women have always had the ability to abort; it's why the Hippocratic oath talks about not procuring an abortifacent even in Greek days. So no, it's not some "newly acquired power."
Yeah, but it wasn't the low risk (medical and social), reliable process like it is today. Equating the two is extremely fallacious.
There is no way in hell women, who are the majority of the population, will accept you having a say over what we do with our bodies, same as you would object if we started pushing for mandatory vasectomies at puberty.
Who said I did? When will you quit the strawman arguments? I said she can have (or not have) the baby if she wants, it's just selfish of her to rope him/society into paying for its upbringing without consent. This is especially egregious when coupled with all that whining about 'my body my right my choice'. You babble about responsibility but apparently only for men.
Lets just skip to the end, then, and force people to live out their lives in concrete boxes where every aspect is hypercontrolled for maximum efficiency and minimum impact on The People. One of the primary reasons people resist socialism is that it always results in some form of authoritarianism. Once something is publicly funded, that something can now be considered 'under threat' by the state, with any 'threatening' action it doesn't like conveniently deemed 'threatening' and 'curtailed,' usually with life-altering penalties. A cascade of power grabs then commences.
As a lifelong non smoker who loathes any sort of smoke, I would never want to live in your smoke free dystopian hell. There'd be too many sacrifices of liberty in too many areas.
Awards for discrimination can go up to $50,000 or more, at a simple hearing where you don't even need a lawyer. People have an incentive to behave better.
Ahh, of course you'd say something like this. When in doubt, use fear, amirite comrade?
This 'nationalist' crap will stop when globalists in each of those national structures quits trying to impose itself on the rest of the world. It's NOT just the US you know.
Really? I can't stand 4:3 stretched, or 235:100 clipped or vertically stretched etc..
However, you're probably right. No one gives a damn anymore. It's too bad.
Once you create a situation - and in this case it's entirely voluntary on your part - you can't cry about the consequences later when you were aware of them ahead of time. Grow up and stop your whining.
When is society going to start telling women this? You know, 'empowered' single mothers who were too stupid to do the right thing and abort, figuring they could bilk it out of his (also broke and unwilling) ass? I bet a lot more of these girls would've aborted if they knew beforehand they couldn't rope him in, at least not without his legally documented consent (or valid marriage license). This is a net win for society's welfare system too.
I was suggesting a system that gives him a post conception choice as well so that neither can take advantage of the other... AFTER the mistake/accident happens. It would separate the choice of having children from the act of sex for men (like women already have), which would encourage it only when both parents are willing and able. Hopefully, she'll quit shacking up with the guys who run and gun if she wants someone to father children. Hopefully, he'll stop chasing girls on the party scene if he's looking for a decent mother for his children.
What's hypocritical is you saying that somehow you don't have the same power to prevent conception as a woman does, that somehow only the woman has a responsibility and an ability to prevent conceptions, when you know damn well you're lying because you don't want to take responsibility for controlling your own fertility. Because you think with your dick.
No I didn't say any of these things. In fact, I was talking about balancing out the recently acquired power of ending conception with a male equivalent that protects his rights while not impinging on hers. You just suck at reading comprehension or your ideological lensing is so great you only see what you want to see. Considering all your ad hominem strawmen, I'm guessing the latter.
If you didn't want a kid, what were you doing sleeping with a woman without protection who wanted to start a family?
If it's not ok to withhold abortion and rope her into marriage because of unwanted pregnancy, it is not ok for her to rope him (or just his wallet) in either. If he refuses, he should have that right (he should not have father's rights until he commits either). She should abort and/or find a guy who is actually ready for fatherhood, raise the kid on her own, or give it up for adoption. While I'll agree that using some form of protection is the best way to go, it doesn't always happen nor does it always work.
Since abortion and birth control offer pre and post conception choices, the rest of your argument is out of date, a strawman, as well as sexist and hypocritical.
If you're too stupid to take precautions, how is that not your own fault?
If it's her body, her right, her choice, then it should be her responsibility, too. If she didn't like the outcome, what was she doing sleeping with a guy without protection who didn't want to start a family?
My personal systems are perpetually upgraded. A cpu/systemboard/ram combo lasts about 5 years, gpus every 2-3, storage as needed. At the end, they enter hand-me-down states and go into secondary machines or are sold/given away. If I had to rebuy the whole machine every time, it would cost me a lot more because I'd have to buy hardware I don't really need to replace yet. I would also end up with sub optimal configurations typically offered by OEMs trying to hit price points.
So get out. Your Radiant Socialist Future awaits, comrade.
..or maybe just that you're crazy and bigoted