You essentially rephrased the "think of the children" argument. And it still isn't morally right.
On top of that, it probably won't work, are they going to put 20000 individual social workers in front of the screens to watch everything? As soon as those kids discover they get away with almost everything, it's back to square one.
But what should society do if mum doesn't care?
What is wrong with community service for the mum/kid?
I don't have to be ashamed on your say so. That's just childish. I'm trying to contribute to a constructive discussion.
already suggested vouchers as a simplistic model for "solidarity."
Did you? Where? Not in the post I was answering to.
I read your original post as saying essentially "we don't need a healthcare system, everybody pays for his own medical needs". Go on, read your own post. Can you see you made your point poorly?
We need to be going in the exact opposite direction - divorce health coverage from employers, open up the market so that people have a broader choice in the coverage they purchase and let the patients take the responsibility for how their healthcare dollars are spent.
In a completely free market, only the healthy get insurance. A healthcare system is about solidarity, e.g. between those that have the luck of not having some gene mutating into a cancerous one and the relatively small group that isn't that lucky.
Common, Shakrai, you're getting all worked up by this topic. Take a short break and then come back...
Your original story was interesting and informative. Now you're just trying to win an ideological discussion - can't be done.
For the record, here in Belgium we have compulsory healthcare system for employees, managed by 5 independent organisations, "mutual healthcare funds" - Ziekenfonds(Dutch), Mutualite (French, last e with accent doesn't fit in slashdot ASCII)). It evolved from a voluntary system in the 1850's, got a big boost after WW I and became compulsary in december '44... At the end of both World Wars , this was not about ideology, it was about rebuilding a ruined country with lots of people suffering from malnutrition and mutilation.
It covers everything from a basic consult over drugs, hospitalization, dental care, child birth etc. You just pay a small fee to counter medical over consumption.
This sounds like a typical silly programmers problem that causes much trouble on windows pc's running in different languages too. Try installing (another) printer named "Default Printer" or whatever the standard name is in windows...
[...]and see what the extra bloat is actually doing and what the source of it is.
Entropy. There is something similar going on with software: it requires substantial effort to keep things simple, it requires zero effort to let things get out of hand.
For the business side of things there seems to be no incentive to invest in code quality (reuse, reusability, refactoring, unit testing,...) for them different things represent value: new visible features (for marketing, customers upgrading,...),...
Security through darkness doesn't work. I don't know how many stupid donkeyish ideas like this I'll have to see before I terminate this career, but I suspect the number will be higher than I care to meditate. This is ridiculously easy to pervert -- just run it through the thesaurus algorithm a few more times. Viola, new unique copies, that don't game what they have on music album.
Next on the small boat enclosure -- "Why you can read your coworkers e-mail but not the NSA's. Explorations in the hemorrhagingly obvious."
I think you're mistaken. Can you see any difference with your original post? I knew it.
If you want to run Word, you need to accept the Word EULA and the Windows EULA and the anti virus EULA and the printer driver EULA and the, well, you get the drift. What is the percentage of EULA's you read on the total you accepted? They multiply like a disease. It's practically impossible to keep track of them, they are all (slightly) different.
Straw man. The GPL doesn't have anything to do with use-rights. It only deals with distribution rights for GPL software, and its viral nature only manifests when distributing derivative works.
Thank you. That was the point. Installing the application does not 'infect' anything. The 'viral' argument is just FUD thrown around by S. Balmer.
The only time when somebody has to apply the GPL to their own work is when they want to create derivative work. Try that with Word - and no, macro's don't count.
I disagree. Install Inkscape on the same machine as Word, and Word will not be affected (still sick, but hey).
GPL is an extremely permissive copyright "restriction". If you want to copy the source code in your code, then you have to obey some very nice rules. Don't like it? Write your own stuff.
[...] a term selling to the upper management above IT who have no idea what it means.
Nobody knows what it means. It is not as if there is a clear undisputed definition of the term "Cloud Computing". And lots of people pretend to be absolutely clear about what it exactly means.
Same goes for SOA, ESB, MDA, Architect, Architecture, Analyst,...
I fully agree that the paintings are in the public domain, but it does NOT mean that the digital photos are. [...]
Having done museum copywork in the past, I can assure you that getting high-quality images of paintings is NOT simple[...]
madCow.
I've got a similar problem, photographs in the city archive that are in the public domain (WWI, >90 years). You can buy an expensive copy (thats very relative, but around 25 euro), and you have to agree to not make copies of it and not show them on the internet except for very bad thumbnail quality stuff - so you can't do anything effectively with it. I think that is even more clear than the photos of paintings, these ARE the photos.
It is similar to a company suddenly revoking GPL'd source code, retroactively. It's not based on any law. It's just greed. You can sell the stuff however, no problem.
I understand that there is a cost involved making the photos - but you can not claim copyright on it. Needs a different business model.
It's not an ideological problem, it's a practical problem. You can not practically change the licensing of Linux.
I think much of the 'special' open source licenses like CDDL are designed to NOT be compatible with the GPL and therefore make it impossible for (in this case) Linux to inherit the same feature. Sun wanted their Solaris to have some unique selling points after all - and that's their right. We Linux users would welcome a GPL'd ZFS, but can not demand it, they don't have to give it away...
Slashdot Mirror
You are mentally ill, that book you refer to never existed. When you hear the knock on the door, go quietly...
You essentially rephrased the "think of the children" argument. And it still isn't morally right.
On top of that, it probably won't work, are they going to put 20000 individual social workers in front of the screens to watch everything? As soon as those kids discover they get away with almost everything, it's back to square one.
But what should society do if mum doesn't care?
What is wrong with community service for the mum/kid?
I don't have to be ashamed on your say so. That's just childish. I'm trying to contribute to a constructive discussion.
Did you? Where? Not in the post I was answering to.
I read your original post as saying essentially "we don't need a healthcare system, everybody pays for his own medical needs". Go on, read your own post. Can you see you made your point poorly?
I doubt it, but he will have to hand over REAL MONEY using nothing but REAL WHEEL BARROWS.
You're terribly brainwashed. Look for balanced sourceS of information.
And it is not "socialised", "compulsory" vs "optional" is more to the point (I know, not your choice of words)
In a completely free market, only the healthy get insurance. A healthcare system is about solidarity, e.g. between those that have the luck of not having some gene mutating into a cancerous one and the relatively small group that isn't that lucky.
Second Amendment ?
Common, Shakrai, you're getting all worked up by this topic. Take a short break and then come back...
Your original story was interesting and informative. Now you're just trying to win an ideological discussion - can't be done.
For the record, here in Belgium we have compulsory healthcare system for employees, managed by 5 independent organisations, "mutual healthcare funds" - Ziekenfonds(Dutch), Mutualite (French, last e with accent doesn't fit in slashdot ASCII)). It evolved from a voluntary system in the 1850's, got a big boost after WW I and became compulsary in december '44... At the end of both World Wars , this was not about ideology, it was about rebuilding a ruined country with lots of people suffering from malnutrition and mutilation.
It covers everything from a basic consult over drugs, hospitalization, dental care, child birth etc. You just pay a small fee to counter medical over consumption.
Perhaps you could provide some information to Open printing? That would be helpful, thanks in advance...
Which distro and java version?
This sounds like a typical silly programmers problem that causes much trouble on windows pc's running in different languages too. Try installing (another) printer named "Default Printer" or whatever the standard name is in windows...
For one thing, as the asshole and zealot you clearly are, your knowledge and concept of Windows is stuck 8+ years in the past.
That covers the current state of the art, then. XP was released in 2001.
Is there really any need for that sort of Microsoft bashing?
Yes. Bringing some balance to a multi billion dollar marketing machine.
Entropy. There is something similar going on with software: it requires substantial effort to keep things simple, it requires zero effort to let things get out of hand.
For the business side of things there seems to be no incentive to invest in code quality (reuse, reusability, refactoring, unit testing,...) for them different things represent value: new visible features (for marketing, customers upgrading,...), ...
Security through darkness doesn't work. I don't know how many stupid donkeyish ideas like this I'll have to see before I terminate this career, but I suspect the number will be higher than I care to meditate. This is ridiculously easy to pervert -- just run it through the thesaurus algorithm a few more times. Viola, new unique copies, that don't game what they have on music album.
Next on the small boat enclosure -- "Why you can read your coworkers e-mail but not the NSA's. Explorations in the hemorrhagingly obvious."
I think you're mistaken. Can you see any difference with your original post? I knew it.
cat /dev/random | head | tail
At present most networking gear has a hard time routing packets through open air, but I hear they're ginning up a new RFC to address that.
You only need one idiot^H^H^H^H^Huser with a WiFi router inside. Granted, that's more of an Enterprise problem than a DoD problem. Probably.
How are EULAs viral?
If you want to run Word, you need to accept the Word EULA and the Windows EULA and the anti virus EULA and the printer driver EULA and the, well, you get the drift. What is the percentage of EULA's you read on the total you accepted? They multiply like a disease. It's practically impossible to keep track of them, they are all (slightly) different.
Straw man. The GPL doesn't have anything to do with use-rights. It only deals with distribution rights for GPL software, and its viral nature only manifests when distributing derivative works.
Thank you. That was the point. Installing the application does not 'infect' anything. The 'viral' argument is just FUD thrown around by S. Balmer.
The only time when somebody has to apply the GPL to their own work is when they want to create derivative work. Try that with Word - and no, macro's don't count.
The GPL is viral, but that's ok.
I disagree. Install Inkscape on the same machine as Word, and Word will not be affected (still sick, but hey).
GPL is an extremely permissive copyright "restriction". If you want to copy the source code in your code, then you have to obey some very nice rules. Don't like it? Write your own stuff.
EULA's are viral.
[...] a term selling to the upper management above IT who have no idea what it means.
Nobody knows what it means. It is not as if there is a clear undisputed definition of the term "Cloud Computing". And lots of people pretend to be absolutely clear about what it exactly means.
Same goes for SOA, ESB, MDA, Architect, Architecture, Analyst,...
They just don't get it.
You either get 'Open Source', 'Creative Commons', 'failure of DRM' etc. or you don't.
<sarcasm>Because Wikipedia grew to world domination by using very restrictive licenses</sarcasm>
Yeah, but on your typical cell phone's picture, it would be hard to attribute limbs of either... Oh I see, you mean two separate photos?
Oh please, it's a response to
If this had been Windows, the article would have been tagged defectivebydesign.
You're not supposed to read the article, but at least the post you're criticizing.
I fully agree that the paintings are in the public domain, but it does NOT mean that the digital photos are. [...]
Having done museum copywork in the past, I can assure you that getting high-quality images of paintings is NOT simple[...]
madCow.
I've got a similar problem, photographs in the city archive that are in the public domain (WWI, >90 years). You can buy an expensive copy (thats very relative, but around 25 euro), and you have to agree to not make copies of it and not show them on the internet except for very bad thumbnail quality stuff - so you can't do anything effectively with it. I think that is even more clear than the photos of paintings, these ARE the photos.
It is similar to a company suddenly revoking GPL'd source code, retroactively. It's not based on any law. It's just greed. You can sell the stuff however, no problem.
I understand that there is a cost involved making the photos - but you can not claim copyright on it. Needs a different business model.
They own the brand, but they can't "unopensource" the code.
It's not an ideological problem, it's a practical problem. You can not practically change the licensing of Linux.
I think much of the 'special' open source licenses like CDDL are designed to NOT be compatible with the GPL and therefore make it impossible for (in this case) Linux to inherit the same feature. Sun wanted their Solaris to have some unique selling points after all - and that's their right. We Linux users would welcome a GPL'd ZFS, but can not demand it, they don't have to give it away...