D'oh... suckered into writing a long reply for naught. Like I said, Hitler and the like proved that we won't be left alone. (and if you look at Eurpoe before WWI you will notice that Hitler was a result of the way most of the contenent felt then, he is the most prominate case, but most of Europe was itching for a war.
I can't figure out what you're talking about. For one thing, you seem to be confusing elements of WW1 and WW2.
Does the average person pay for software because they want to or because they don't know any better? The average consumer becomes more sophisticated every year.
And one thing I have noticed is that even those consumers who feel the urge to pay for the things they could get for free don't really care where the money is going.
Whoa, hold the fort. What is the nature of this "notwithstanding clause"? Unless it comes with severe restrictions, it kind of defeats the purpose of having a charter in the first place. "The charter shall hold, notwithstanding any laws passed which contradict it." WTF? (Serious question here.)
The notwithstanding clause allows the government to pass laws that contravene the constitution, however there are some limitations. The law must specifically state that it is overriding the constitution. Also, the law is only valid for 5 years, at which point it must be renewed (5 years is also the maximum possible interval between elections). Finally, the constitution states that certain clauses cannot be overriden. The notwithstanding clause can be used by either a federal or provincial legislature. It has hardly ever been used, except in Quebec, the most notable example being their draconian sign law.
This argument is moot. The VAST majority of the consumers (I'm not talking about geeks here, who are a minority) do not download software.
I'm not sure that's true. I would guess that the vast majority of online teens have managed to download and install Kazaa by themselves. Often, they don't have access to high-speed connections, don't have CD-burners (or aren't familiar with burning CD-ROMs. eg. some have no idea what an ISO file is or how to burn a bootable ISO) and so forth.
You're talking about short-term constraints. Don't most new computers come with CD-burners these days? Back when I didn't have broadband, I could easily borrow a burned Mandrake CD from a friend.
Whoa, I though you didn't have that much respect for constitutions? Why bother trumpeting yours?
I didn't say that I didn't have respect for constitutions. I said I didn't have respect for dogmatic obedience to 200 year old texts. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has adapted to suit modern times (prohibiting discrimination against gays being a classic example).
Our constitution doesn't need updating as much as yours does. Our last two failed attempts to change the consitution dealt with the division of power between the federal and provincial governments and the question of whether Quebec should be allowed to enforce its draconian language laws.
(Incidentally, our constitution has a "not withstanding" clause, which means that the government can pass an unconstitutional law if they wish.)
I think the US should amend its constitution to rescind the right to bear arms, but whenever I heard this topic discussed in the media, the pro-gun person will usual say one of two things:
1. You shouldn't outlaw guns because it's our constitutional right to bear arms. (These are often the same people who come up with gems like "Marijuana is bad because it's illegal.")
2. If guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns.
Argument #1 is clearly begging the question. You hear this argument a lot on/. as well in reference to first amendment. Some people have gotten the idea that source code is speech (as in free speech) and thus a 200 year old constitutional provision (since you're apparently opposed to calling it a law) should apply to something that wasn't even invented way back then.
Argument #2 is basically just a tautology (which means it's begging the question as well), although it makes a nice slogan. However, the "obvious" conclusion (that it would be bad if only criminals had guns) doesn't follow. For one thing, fewer criminals would have guns. Also, it is not literally true that only criminals would have guns, since you would want to make some exceptions (e.g. for the police and the army).
There would be many beneficial side effects, even from law abiding citizens not having guns. Young kids couldn't accidentally find their parents' gun and hurt themselves. Older kids wouldn't have easy access to their parents' guns if they ever got mad enough to kill someone. (I actually know of a case in Canada where this happened.) You are also far less likely to be shot by a burglar if you don't try to fight back.
I believe that if you don't agree with a law then you should fight to get it repealed. I'm not going to automatically show reverence for a law just because it's in the constitution.
I hear it all the time. People use the fact that something *is* legal as justification that it *should be* legal. I'm sure that you consider my ignoriant to because I have a difficult time writing
If English is indeed your first language and you're not dyslexic or something, then I would tend to assume that, yes. Most of the truly smart people I know have learned to speak & write their native language. I wonder how much of your impression is clouded because you don't stand for the same ideas as he does. That is you say "Bush stands for things I don't stand for so he is an idiot", and then find examples to prove that.
Here is a guy that had no particular qualification to be president (or governor) except for who his daddy was. He's not Forrest Gump stupid, but he's definitely not particular smart either. Personally, I think it's appropriate to hold the guy who runs your country to a higher standard.
I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is stupid. I think Bush is dumb because he tries to apply a kind of ninth grade logic to some very complex situations. He's also ignorant. Here's a guy who never even travelled abroad before he became president (despite no lack of opportunity) and now he is responsible for diplomacy?!? This lack of curiosity in the world around him confirms my opinion that he is narrow-minded.
I condemn Bush because he has created some mind-numbingly dumb policies, such as tactical nukes and curtailing stem cell research, that may have profound effects on my future, even though I am not an American.
Start looking at hime objectivly, and you will see a good leader of people, one you may disagree with, (and perhaps not the best) but still a good leader.
I agree that he is a leader -- a much better leader than Al Gore. But maybe, like Pat Robertson, he is leading his followers to hell. And you think Pat Robertson speaks for all americans?
No, but it shows to what degree religion permeates American politics. In Canada, most people vote Liberal or Conservative based on how they will run the country. Our political affiliations are mostly about economic issues, not abortion, family values, and stem cell research. If I was an American, I could never possibly vote Republican, because the risk is too great that one of the supreme court justices would die while they were in power and be replaced with a religious zealot. Figgure it either way you want to, the fact is most people in the US were offended by such comments and privately choose to do something to those who made it.
Exactly. I never claimed that there were any laws passed preventing free speech. The problem is, a large percentage of Americans are so closed minded that they refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with them (even if that person is only planning to talk about baseball). Given that America trumpets itself as the land of the free, it should be considered patriotic to express your opinion, not patriotic to blindly follow the leader. Your statement sound close to an arguement that I should have been forced to buy a Dixie Chicks album because they opposed the way and made statements about it, regaurdless about how I feel about either their music, or their statements.
Now that's ridiculous. I never said anything of the sort. I don't personally like the Dixie Chicks' music, but apparently they were quite popular until they made those statements and had their music yanked from almost every radio station. Another good example is Bill Maher, who had his show cancelled just because he stated one politically incorrect opinion (on a show called Politically Incorrect). I don't see why Homosexuals don't have equal rights.
The problem is that prejudice is widespread in the US (as it is in many countries) and the government doesn't force people to treat them equally. As to slavery, I just th
If the guy that spent money developing the product asks that you not make a direct, compatible, free software GPLd competitor then I think under the circumstances that that is only fair. I mean, he's trying to make some money here, and he's not making it from the Linux community. That's certainly not illegal, and it's not inherently immoral (unless you're Richard Stallman). I mean look at Red Hat, Mandrake or any of the distros; they make money. It's how you make money.
I don't really understand your comment here. You didn't mention how they make money. I thought the way Red Hat made money was buy investing the 300 odd million dollars they got from issuing stock in "strategic investments". At least that's what it says in their SEC filings.
The moral of the story is that Red Hat should not underestimate the value of the consumers plunking down $100 for a Red Hat boxed OS with each new version. If they did it right, that initial purhcase would mean more to them than the recurring RHN subscriptions.
If it hasn't worked so far, what's likely to change? It's pretty hard to sell low-end consumers on a product they can get for free. Businesses are a bit different. A lot of people are more willing to "donate" their employer's money to Red Hat than their own.
The ONLY people we care about are the artists, and while your endless speeches talk about how music pirates are hurting artists, we KNOW that the only people we are hurting are the labels.
Personally, I believe that the only person you care about is yourself.
So true. Munich spent more for Linux, but for that money they got customization, training and support-- a hidden cost of going the Microsoft route. If there were no alternatives to Microsoft, the economic environment wouldn't matter much, would it?
The way I remember the Munich article, they concluded that the TCO for Linux was higher than for Windows, but they paid more for Linux, a) out of spite, and b) to avoid vendor lock-in.
The gun deaths have to do with lack of enforcement of laws against criminals, not the gun ownership by law-abiding individuals.
Right... You know, I'm fairly sure the US has not just the highest death rate from hardened criminals, but also the highest rate of gun suicides, gun accidents (e.g. kids playing with their parents' guns), and gun murders by teen-agers. Once an amendment is added, it becomes part of the Constitution. The part protecting free speech is the same way.
That's not the point. The fact that the constitution has amendments means that it can change. Just because the right to bear arms is a constitutional right doesn't mean we couldn't repeal that right. Huh? He's [Bush] quite smart. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Hehe... He has people to write his speeches for him and he still comes off as dumb and ignorant. We are not responsible for the appaling ignorance of those who see things as they are not.
You don't think the US is theocratic? Interesting how Pat Robertson is praying for 3 judges to die so that Bush can install replacements who will continue to enforce religious rule. Huh? No one has censored or censured these individuals, even though they have uttered hateful lies. Their free speech has not been abridged at all.
Double huh? Susan Sarandon was prevented from speaking at the baseball hall of fame just because she opposed the war. What does baseball have to do with politics?
The other 3 points you didn't even try to contest.
1. It's troll food so everyone on/. can tell this guy to use open source instead of answering his question?
2. Those MSDN ads that kept/. alive for about a month when no one else was advertising came with strings attached? Run some MS stories or else!
If you think #2 is excessively paranoid, keep in mind that as I write this, I am being distracted by a giant animated New York Times ad at the top of my screen.
It may seem extremist but that's how things are. Since you are close to the middle, you may not be aware of the core issues that seperate people.
I doubt that. It's not like I'm sheltered from extremist opinions. I watch CNN.:-) We, on the left, strive to create a society where everyone is treated as equal, given the same opportunity, penalized equally, etc.
Right wingers might say the same thing, except that everyone has an equal opportunity to be a self-made man. If anything, men look different from women, and have different features and qualities. Each have their advantages are disadvantages. For example, men are generally stronger than women, men are more athletic, etc. Conversely, women are emotionally stronger, can reproduce, etc.
Well, I do notice that you tend to equalize everything. Just as with race, you make double sure not to imply that mens' strengths outnumber womens' strengths [or vice-versa:-)]. Another important point is that egalitarianism also implies no classes. This is a big difference from the right-wing, who subscribe to merit-based elitist systems which result in classes.
I think there's a big difference between believing in classes and believing in a system that may lead to classes. Otherwise, I might ask "Why do socialists believe in economic collapse?" It won't drop wages by 3/4ths.. it will drop wages by 100%... there won't be ANY jobs in that field...
That doesn't make sense either. What bothers me is that there are plenty of GPL apologists who say "There will always be jobs for programmers." Sure there will be, just not very many of them. The American standard of living will decline to meet that of the rest of the world. What I was talking about is not just R&D but a lot of other jobs too (like support, marketing, etc). There IS a benefit from all this. But it accrues to the owners of the company. If you are the owner it's great--that's why they move in the first place. If you are a worker, it sucks.
My claim is that the benefit to the owner is short-term only. Reduced costs are only profitable when you have a small number of competitors. Yeah that's true... In fact, the whole internet architecture and deployment is due to university researchers and stuff. Besides, Linux was due to Linus Torvalds' school project. Having said that, private companies are heavily involved in open-source (eg. IBM, Oracle, etc).
Many companies think that they will be the ones to tame the beast. Netscape tried, Corel tried, Caldera tried. The key to IBM and Oracle is that they haven't given away the farm. (But they are always only one bitter turf war away from doing so.)
"You know, the bible is an unfalible book from 2000 years ago and it doesn't say anything about the right to gun ownership."
As has already been pointed out, the bible predates the invention of guns.
Yeah, I know. That was my point. The constitution is a 200 year old document. It clearly wasn't perfect, as it had to be amended numerous times (including to add your precious 2nd amendment). It is a very reactionary document, seeing as it was written right after a bloody revolutionary war. Meanwhile, circumstances have changed but the constitution remains mostly the same.
"You know, the bible is an unfalible book from 2000 years ago and it doesn't say anything about the right to gun ownership." You don't suppose that could be the result of the Bible being centuries older than firearms, do you?
etc...
You're not very good at picking up on sarcasm, are you?
"Hehe... don't you Americans know how ridiculous to the rest of the world?"
I hope we Americans never make our decisions based upon whatever people think of us---but rather on what is right. Hopefully that will usually agree with the rest of the world, indeed. But if it doesn't, that's just tough. There are far too many examples in history where the consensus proved wrong.
Let me list some ways in which Americans look ridiculous to the rest of the world:
1. You adhere to a 200 year old law about handgun ownership, despite the fact that you have by far the highest rate of gun deaths in the Western world.
2. You defend the law by saying that it is a "constitutional right", despite the fact that it was actually an amendment to the constitution, which implies (among other things) that the constitution can change.
3. You champion yourself as the "land of the free" (as I write this, there's an ad on CNN proclaiming just this fact), but you are among the last to abolish slavery, abolish segregation, and give equal rights to homosexuals.
4. You have a president who clearly has the IQ of a toadstool. No one can really understand how he got elected, but for some reason Americans feel obligated to support him just because there's a war going on. (Reminds me of a scene from Orwell's 1984.)
5. You are attacked by religious fanatics and then you invade a country that is almost secular. This is funny to the rest of the Western world who see the US as a de facto theocracy.
6. You unilaterally decide to invade Iraq, supposedly to promote "freedom", but you censor/censure anyone (Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandom, France, Canada, etc.) who tries to exercise their freedom of speech.
7. And the funniest part of all: When you get to Iraq, the first thing you do is confiscate all the citizens' weapons. Although I see your point... If any country's citizens need to protect themselves from their own government at the moment, it would be the Americans. Well, this is silly, the Bible is silent about a lot of things, particularly of modern origin. Am I sinning by using a computer, since the Bible doesn't say I have the right to use one? Or since the Bible makes no mention of the Internet, is the enjoyment of Internet porn exempt from its admonitions against sexual immorality?
Maybe you didn't guess this, but I am not a Christian. I just find it funny how Americans treat their constitution with all the dogma of a religious text (the US is a de facto theocracy anyway). Here in Canada, people use guns for hunting, not for shooting each other. We never had slavery, and we even provided a refuge for escaped American slaves. We don't start wars (or fund rebel groups or despots that later turn on us), we help to end them. And *our* charter of rights and freedoms guarantees equal rights to all citizens, including homosexuals.
Hehe... don't you Americans know how ridiculous to the rest of the world?
You know, the bible is an unfalible book from 2000 years ago and it doesn't say anything about the right to gun ownership. Shouldn't that take precedence over your constitution, which is merely an infalible document from 200 years ago?
"In other words, BSD is allowing them to end the line of 'Freeness'" Only in the world of GPL zealots would placing restrictions on something make it more free than it would be without them. Oh wait, they talk that way in the Pentagon too don't they. Perhaps you guys have future after all.
My fellow slashdotters,
We have discovered an axis of evil that extends from Boston, Mass all the way to Finland. The evil doers have threatened the software industry with their licenses of mass destruction. The dictator has obtained agents of cybernetic bioterrorism, so-called "viral licenses", and he will use them. He has already gassed his own people with his lingering BO. Freedom loving citizens of Berkley, we must make a pre-emptive counterattack. Your donation will help to strengthen the coalition of the willing, by buying another senator. We're going to win this any way we can.
It all depends on which side of the coin you're looking at. Commercial software venders see the GPL'ed code as a risk to their IP. Alas, viral is a bad word to describe this any ways. Recursive licensing sounds better:)
Recursive licensing?!? Actually, that sounds worse, unless you're talking about the GPL Public Licen***stack overflow***
For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
It's "not sufficient"... What is this clause saying? Is it just reiterating that either situation 1 or 2 must be proven as well?
There is no such place as Slovania. There is Slovenia and Slovakia. There are also Pennsylvania and Transylvania; maybe you were thinking about those. But there is no Slovania. Sorry.
Shlovenia, Shlovakia, Sholevnia,,, who cares? I'm drinking right now, and this beer ain't free.
Phew... when I first read that headline I thought someone had raised the price of beer in Slovania. Not that I'm ever going to go to Slovania, but with globalization and stuff I worry about these things.
Slashdot Mirror
D'oh... suckered into writing a long reply for naught.
Like I said, Hitler and the like proved that we won't be left alone. (and if you look at Eurpoe before WWI you will notice that Hitler was a result of the way most of the contenent felt then, he is the most prominate case, but most of Europe was itching for a war.
I can't figure out what you're talking about. For one thing, you seem to be confusing elements of WW1 and WW2.
-a
Have you ever seen a clean-shaven terrorist?
-a
Does the average person pay for software because they want to or because they don't know any better? The average consumer becomes more sophisticated every year.
And one thing I have noticed is that even those consumers who feel the urge to pay for the things they could get for free don't really care where the money is going.
-a
Whoa, hold the fort. What is the nature of this "notwithstanding clause"? Unless it comes with severe restrictions, it kind of defeats the purpose of having a charter in the first place. "The charter shall hold, notwithstanding any laws passed which contradict it." WTF? (Serious question here.)
The notwithstanding clause allows the government to pass laws that contravene the constitution, however there are some limitations. The law must specifically state that it is overriding the constitution. Also, the law is only valid for 5 years, at which point it must be renewed (5 years is also the maximum possible interval between elections). Finally, the constitution states that certain clauses cannot be overriden. The notwithstanding clause can be used by either a federal or provincial legislature. It has hardly ever been used, except in Quebec, the most notable example being their draconian sign law.
-a
This argument is moot. The VAST majority of the consumers (I'm not talking about geeks here, who are a minority) do not download software.
I'm not sure that's true. I would guess that the vast majority of online teens have managed to download and install Kazaa by themselves.
Often, they don't have access to high-speed connections, don't have CD-burners (or aren't familiar with burning CD-ROMs. eg. some have no idea what an ISO file is or how to burn a bootable ISO) and so forth.
You're talking about short-term constraints. Don't most new computers come with CD-burners these days? Back when I didn't have broadband, I could easily borrow a burned Mandrake CD from a friend.
-a
Whoa, I though you didn't have that much respect for constitutions? Why bother trumpeting yours?
I didn't say that I didn't have respect for constitutions. I said I didn't have respect for dogmatic obedience to 200 year old texts. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has adapted to suit modern times (prohibiting discrimination against gays being a classic example).
Our constitution doesn't need updating as much as yours does. Our last two failed attempts to change the consitution dealt with the division of power between the federal and provincial governments and the question of whether Quebec should be allowed to enforce its draconian language laws.
(Incidentally, our constitution has a "not withstanding" clause, which means that the government can pass an unconstitutional law if they wish.)
I think the US should amend its constitution to rescind the right to bear arms, but whenever I heard this topic discussed in the media, the pro-gun person will usual say one of two things:
1. You shouldn't outlaw guns because it's our constitutional right to bear arms. (These are often the same people who come up with gems like "Marijuana is bad because it's illegal.")
2. If guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns.
Argument #1 is clearly begging the question. You hear this argument a lot on
Argument #2 is basically just a tautology (which means it's begging the question as well), although it makes a nice slogan. However, the "obvious" conclusion (that it would be bad if only criminals had guns) doesn't follow. For one thing, fewer criminals would have guns. Also, it is not literally true that only criminals would have guns, since you would want to make some exceptions (e.g. for the police and the army).
There would be many beneficial side effects, even from law abiding citizens not having guns. Young kids couldn't accidentally find their parents' gun and hurt themselves. Older kids wouldn't have easy access to their parents' guns if they ever got mad enough to kill someone. (I actually know of a case in Canada where this happened.) You are also far less likely to be shot by a burglar if you don't try to fight back.
I believe that if you don't agree with a law then you should fight to get it repealed. I'm not going to automatically show reverence for a law just because it's in the constitution.
-a
Where did anyone state that it wasn't the case.
I hear it all the time. People use the fact that something *is* legal as justification that it *should be* legal.
I'm sure that you consider my ignoriant to because I have a difficult time writing
If English is indeed your first language and you're not dyslexic or something, then I would tend to assume that, yes. Most of the truly smart people I know have learned to speak & write their native language.
I wonder how much of your impression is clouded because you don't stand for the same ideas as he does. That is you say "Bush stands for things I don't stand for so he is an idiot", and then find examples to prove that.
Here is a guy that had no particular qualification to be president (or governor) except for who his daddy was. He's not Forrest Gump stupid, but he's definitely not particular smart either. Personally, I think it's appropriate to hold the guy who runs your country to a higher standard.
I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is stupid. I think Bush is dumb because he tries to apply a kind of ninth grade logic to some very complex situations. He's also ignorant. Here's a guy who never even travelled abroad before he became president (despite no lack of opportunity) and now he is responsible for diplomacy?!? This lack of curiosity in the world around him confirms my opinion that he is narrow-minded.
I condemn Bush because he has created some mind-numbingly dumb policies, such as tactical nukes and curtailing stem cell research, that may have profound effects on my future, even though I am not an American.
Start looking at hime objectivly, and you will see a good leader of people, one you may disagree with, (and perhaps not the best) but still a good leader.
I agree that he is a leader -- a much better leader than Al Gore. But maybe, like Pat Robertson, he is leading his followers to hell.
And you think Pat Robertson speaks for all americans?
No, but it shows to what degree religion permeates American politics. In Canada, most people vote Liberal or Conservative based on how they will run the country. Our political affiliations are mostly about economic issues, not abortion, family values, and stem cell research. If I was an American, I could never possibly vote Republican, because the risk is too great that one of the supreme court justices would die while they were in power and be replaced with a religious zealot.
Figgure it either way you want to, the fact is most people in the US were offended by such comments and privately choose to do something to those who made it.
Exactly. I never claimed that there were any laws passed preventing free speech. The problem is, a large percentage of Americans are so closed minded that they refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with them (even if that person is only planning to talk about baseball). Given that America trumpets itself as the land of the free, it should be considered patriotic to express your opinion, not patriotic to blindly follow the leader.
Your statement sound close to an arguement that I should have been forced to buy a Dixie Chicks album because they opposed the way and made statements about it, regaurdless about how I feel about either their music, or their statements.
Now that's ridiculous. I never said anything of the sort. I don't personally like the Dixie Chicks' music, but apparently they were quite popular until they made those statements and had their music yanked from almost every radio station. Another good example is Bill Maher, who had his show cancelled just because he stated one politically incorrect opinion (on a show called Politically Incorrect).
I don't see why Homosexuals don't have equal rights.
The problem is that prejudice is widespread in the US (as it is in many countries) and the government doesn't force people to treat them equally. As to slavery, I just th
If the guy that spent money developing the product asks that you not make a direct, compatible, free software GPLd competitor then I think under the circumstances that that is only fair. I mean, he's trying to make some money here, and he's not making it from the Linux community. That's certainly not illegal, and it's not inherently immoral (unless you're Richard Stallman). I mean look at Red Hat, Mandrake or any of the distros; they make money. It's how you make money.
I don't really understand your comment here. You didn't mention how they make money. I thought the way Red Hat made money was buy investing the 300 odd million dollars they got from issuing stock in "strategic investments". At least that's what it says in their SEC filings.
-a
The moral of the story is that Red Hat should not underestimate the value of the consumers plunking down $100 for a Red Hat boxed OS with each new version. If they did it right, that initial purhcase would mean more to them than the recurring RHN subscriptions.
If it hasn't worked so far, what's likely to change? It's pretty hard to sell low-end consumers on a product they can get for free.
Businesses are a bit different. A lot of people are more willing to "donate" their employer's money to Red Hat than their own.
-a
The ONLY people we care about are the artists, and while your endless speeches talk about how music pirates are hurting artists, we KNOW that the only people we are hurting are the labels.
Personally, I believe that the only person you care about is yourself.
But that's just like my opinion, man.
-a
So true. Munich spent more for Linux, but for that money they got customization, training and support-- a hidden cost of going the Microsoft route. If there were no alternatives to Microsoft, the economic environment wouldn't matter much, would it?
The way I remember the Munich article, they concluded that the TCO for Linux was higher than for Windows, but they paid more for Linux, a) out of spite, and b) to avoid vendor lock-in.
-a
The gun deaths have to do with lack of enforcement of laws against criminals, not the gun ownership by law-abiding individuals.
Right... You know, I'm fairly sure the US has not just the highest death rate from hardened criminals, but also the highest rate of gun suicides, gun accidents (e.g. kids playing with their parents' guns), and gun murders by teen-agers.
Once an amendment is added, it becomes part of the Constitution. The part protecting free speech is the same way.
That's not the point. The fact that the constitution has amendments means that it can change. Just because the right to bear arms is a constitutional right doesn't mean we couldn't repeal that right.
Huh? He's [Bush] quite smart. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Hehe... He has people to write his speeches for him and he still comes off as dumb and ignorant.
We are not responsible for the appaling ignorance of those who see things as they are not.
You don't think the US is theocratic? Interesting how Pat Robertson is praying for 3 judges to die so that Bush can install replacements who will continue to enforce religious rule.
Huh? No one has censored or censured these individuals, even though they have uttered hateful lies. Their free speech has not been abridged at all.
Double huh? Susan Sarandon was prevented from speaking at the baseball hall of fame just because she opposed the war. What does baseball have to do with politics?
The other 3 points you didn't even try to contest.
-a
1. It's troll food so everyone on /. can tell this guy to use open source instead of answering his question?
/. alive for about a month when no one else was advertising came with strings attached? Run some MS stories or else!
2. Those MSDN ads that kept
If you think #2 is excessively paranoid, keep in mind that as I write this, I am being distracted by a giant animated New York Times ad at the top of my screen.
-a
It may seem extremist but that's how things are. Since you are close to the middle, you may not be aware of the core issues that seperate people.
I doubt that. It's not like I'm sheltered from extremist opinions. I watch CNN.
We, on the left, strive to create a society where everyone is treated as equal, given the same opportunity, penalized equally, etc.
Right wingers might say the same thing, except that everyone has an equal opportunity to be a self-made man.
If anything, men look different from women, and have different features and qualities. Each have their advantages are disadvantages. For example, men are generally stronger than women, men are more athletic, etc. Conversely, women are emotionally stronger, can reproduce, etc.
Well, I do notice that you tend to equalize everything. Just as with race, you make double sure not to imply that mens' strengths outnumber womens' strengths [or vice-versa
Another important point is that egalitarianism also implies no classes. This is a big difference from the right-wing, who subscribe to merit-based elitist systems which result in classes.
I think there's a big difference between believing in classes and believing in a system that may lead to classes. Otherwise, I might ask "Why do socialists believe in economic collapse?"
It won't drop wages by 3/4ths.. it will drop wages by 100%... there won't be ANY jobs in that field...
That doesn't make sense either. What bothers me is that there are plenty of GPL apologists who say "There will always be jobs for programmers." Sure there will be, just not very many of them. The American standard of living will decline to meet that of the rest of the world.
What I was talking about is not just R&D but a lot of other jobs too (like support, marketing, etc). There IS a benefit from all this. But it accrues to the owners of the company. If you are the owner it's great--that's why they move in the first place. If you are a worker, it sucks.
My claim is that the benefit to the owner is short-term only. Reduced costs are only profitable when you have a small number of competitors.
Yeah that's true... In fact, the whole internet architecture and deployment is due to university researchers and stuff. Besides, Linux was due to Linus Torvalds' school project. Having said that, private companies are heavily involved in open-source (eg. IBM, Oracle, etc).
Many companies think that they will be the ones to tame the beast. Netscape tried, Corel tried, Caldera tried. The key to IBM and Oracle is that they haven't given away the farm. (But they are always only one bitter turf war away from doing so.)
-a
I believe you mean the GNU/GPL: GNU is not Unix is not Unix is not Unix is not Unix is not
No, actually I meant the GPL public license public license public license public license...
-a
"You know, the bible is an unfalible book from 2000 years ago and it doesn't say anything about the right to gun ownership."
As has already been pointed out, the bible predates the invention of guns.
Yeah, I know. That was my point. The constitution is a 200 year old document. It clearly wasn't perfect, as it had to be amended numerous times (including to add your precious 2nd amendment). It is a very reactionary document, seeing as it was written right after a bloody revolutionary war. Meanwhile, circumstances have changed but the constitution remains mostly the same.
-a
"You know, the bible is an unfalible book from 2000 years ago and it doesn't say anything about the right to gun ownership."
You don't suppose that could be the result of the Bible being centuries older than firearms, do you?
etc...
You're not very good at picking up on sarcasm, are you?
-a
"Hehe... don't you Americans know how ridiculous to the rest of the world?"
I hope we Americans never make our decisions based upon whatever people think of us---but rather on what is right. Hopefully that will usually agree with the rest of the world, indeed. But if it doesn't, that's just tough. There are far too many examples in history where the consensus proved wrong.
Let me list some ways in which Americans look ridiculous to the rest of the world:
1. You adhere to a 200 year old law about handgun ownership, despite the fact that you have by far the highest rate of gun deaths in the Western world.
2. You defend the law by saying that it is a "constitutional right", despite the fact that it was actually an amendment to the constitution, which implies (among other things) that the constitution can change.
3. You champion yourself as the "land of the free" (as I write this, there's an ad on CNN proclaiming just this fact), but you are among the last to abolish slavery, abolish segregation, and give equal rights to homosexuals.
4. You have a president who clearly has the IQ of a toadstool. No one can really understand how he got elected, but for some reason Americans feel obligated to support him just because there's a war going on. (Reminds me of a scene from Orwell's 1984.)
5. You are attacked by religious fanatics and then you invade a country that is almost secular. This is funny to the rest of the Western world who see the US as a de facto theocracy.
6. You unilaterally decide to invade Iraq, supposedly to promote "freedom", but you censor/censure anyone (Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandom, France, Canada, etc.) who tries to exercise their freedom of speech.
7. And the funniest part of all: When you get to Iraq, the first thing you do is confiscate all the citizens' weapons. Although I see your point... If any country's citizens need to protect themselves from their own government at the moment, it would be the Americans.
Well, this is silly, the Bible is silent about a lot of things, particularly of modern origin. Am I sinning by using a computer, since the Bible doesn't say I have the right to use one? Or since the Bible makes no mention of the Internet, is the enjoyment of Internet porn exempt from its admonitions against sexual immorality?
Maybe you didn't guess this, but I am not a Christian. I just find it funny how Americans treat their constitution with all the dogma of a religious text (the US is a de facto theocracy anyway). Here in Canada, people use guns for hunting, not for shooting each other. We never had slavery, and we even provided a refuge for escaped American slaves. We don't start wars (or fund rebel groups or despots that later turn on us), we help to end them. And *our* charter of rights and freedoms guarantees equal rights to all citizens, including homosexuals.
-a
Hehe... don't you Americans know how ridiculous to the rest of the world?
You know, the bible is an unfalible book from 2000 years ago and it doesn't say anything about the right to gun ownership. Shouldn't that take precedence over your constitution, which is merely an infalible document from 200 years ago?
-a
"In other words, BSD is allowing them to end the line of 'Freeness'" Only in the world of GPL zealots would placing restrictions on something make it more free than it would be without them. Oh wait, they talk that way in the Pentagon too don't they. Perhaps you guys have future after all.
My fellow slashdotters,
We have discovered an axis of evil that extends from Boston, Mass all the way to Finland. The evil doers have threatened the software industry with their licenses of mass destruction. The dictator has obtained agents of cybernetic bioterrorism, so-called "viral licenses", and he will use them. He has already gassed his own people with his lingering BO. Freedom loving citizens of Berkley, we must make a pre-emptive counterattack. Your donation will help to strengthen the coalition of the willing, by buying another senator. We're going to win this any way we can.
-a
It all depends on which side of the coin you're looking at. Commercial software venders see the GPL'ed code as a risk to their IP. Alas, viral is a bad word to describe this any ways. Recursive licensing sounds better
Recursive licensing?!? Actually, that sounds worse, unless you're talking about the GPL Public Licen***stack overflow***
For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
It's "not sufficient"... What is this clause saying? Is it just reiterating that either situation 1 or 2 must be proven as well?
-a
Take this exact same story and substitute "file sharing" with "spamming". Would this story still be posted as a YRO?
(Actually, probably yes, except this time it would be about your right to sue the WiFi operator who allows untraceable spam.)
-a
There is no such place as Slovania. There is Slovenia and Slovakia. There are also Pennsylvania and Transylvania; maybe you were thinking about those. But there is no Slovania. Sorry.
Shlovenia, Shlovakia, Sholevnia,,, who cares? I'm drinking right now, and this beer ain't free.
-a
Phew... when I first read that headline I thought someone had raised the price of beer in Slovania. Not that I'm ever going to go to Slovania, but with globalization and stuff I worry about these things.
-a