Instead of all of these technology companies making their knowledge trade secrets, they sign cross-licensing agreements so that both companies involved can use the other's research to make their own products better.
[..] apparently they all standardized on some proprietary encryption technology that only worked in IE6, before the rest of the world had really standardized on anything [..]
IE6, initial release: August 27, 2001.
Latest version of HTTPS, formally specified: May 2000.
Whatever reason they might have for choosing a proprietary system, probably using ActiveX, it wasn't the fact that the rest of the world was in a state of chaotic lack of encryption. Now if this is system significantly older then even IE6, then you might have a point, but HTTPS has been around for a bit as well.
That doesn't make the title misleading, it's not saying that 'Firefox' is the most popular browser worldwide, it's making the claim that 'Firefox 3.5'. More than that the actual summary clearly references the different versions. This is all about the dynamic of upgrades, I see no indications that the submitter tried to mislead.
One is popular, the other is not. Free software is not measured by the amount of addons, but by the ability of someone to bury you with a lawsuit if they choose to do so.
Do you sell software? Or do you sell your ability to write software? In the later case free software doesn't really interfere, and sometimes helps (low-cost development tools, pre-made code if the client doesn't care about the license as long as they can use it).
As for everything else, you still don't have a right to make money doing whatever you prefer, otherwise we'd see some odd professions along with many anachronistic ones.
If you completely miss the '3.5', then it's a reading comprehension problem, not a title problem. The wording isn't misleading at all, in fact it's very precise. And it's quite an important stat too, IE is so fragmented that even the laziest developers will find it hard to target it exclusively (as noted IE versions are quite different).
...take 5 minutes and no tools to create. Besides, something as forgetting to lock your back door should not make one fear prosecution in a world where homeowners (no protection for renters?) don't have to fear it for attacking intruders, should it?
Also, you're unlikely to return a bat at i.e. 3am.
Bob works a late shift. Besides, something completely out of your control, like when an intruder decides to come by, should not one make fear prosecution in a world like that? Intruders would presumably switch their schedules if it did...
Now you have multiple witnesses who would all have to lie in order to paint your scenario.
Ah, no fear for the brave home defender, unless they lack witnesses that is, or the witnesses stay out of the way because the brave home defender says that they should, while he checks out the noise.
There is no good, morally/ethically correct reason why a homeowner who is faced with an (armed or potentially armed) intruder should ever have to worry about prosecution for any amount of force used against said intruder.
Bob, thanks for letting me borrow your truck, but I forgot my baseball bat, could you bring it over tonight on the way home? The back door is open.
It was horrible officer, I heard this noise from the back door. I grabbed my gun and went to investigate and suddenly this man was coming towards... Bob! God lord Bob, why didn't you turn on the light!
But the sad fact is that, no matter how you personally feel about it, those things *are* owned, and in just about every nation there's a framework that both supports the legitimacy of the current owners.
Same is the case for taxes. However I'm not the one calling for abolition of taxes, nor am I calling taxes stealing.
When you consider natural rights in this way, the right to property kind of makes sense - it obliges people to not unduly deprive you of property, but it makes no obligations on others to provide you that property in the first place.
The problem is that property is not pulled out of vacuum, it's created out of natural resources depriving others of said resources.
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be 'natural' rights?
I don't? I was questioning libertarian moral grandstanding. In their (your?) opinion the self ownership (under various names, this is a very common one) is a (the?) 'natural' right.
And could you explain how is the right to property not one of them, since you clearly think it isn't?
It directly conflicts with self ownership, to enforce property rights on things the owner doesn't directly control at the given moment they, or a person acting on their behalf, would have to violate the thief's self ownership. The thief on the other hand can easily take things without ever harming, seeing or indeed, even knowing who the owner was.
Was your comment just sophomoric romanticizing of collectivism?
My comment wasn't expressing my opinion, no matter how much red bullshit you try to pin on me. If you really want my opinion on property: it's a social construct that is almost universally enforced by all governments and is very effective at reducing bloodshed, encouraging maintenance and trade. I have no desire to get rid of the concept.
Stealing is taking something that belongs to someone else.
And 'belongs' is a fairly arbitrary concept, that changes as does society. Besides he replied to a post about taking 'fruits of labor', not about taking what 'belongs' to someone.
If you weren't making any money, you wouldn't have to pay taxes, if he wasn't making any money his employer wouldn't skim off of him. In the end you both want to eat, no?
No, I don't think anybody deserves any service they aren't willing or able to pay for. I'll await my troll mod now for having the audacity to say that out loud.
So no roads, school or police? Does it apply to *all* services, or just the ones you decide it does apply to?
Does 'this' libertarian also wonder why things takes *without* using force should be taken back using force? Or does 'this' libertarian fall into the convenient category of including property rights into the group of 'natural' rights by twisted logic?
Free speech exists in a vacuum. A social net does not.
Property you can keep on you exists by virtue of personal self determination (that is you have to be attacked for you to take it away). All other types do not, they require you to attack to take them back, violating the new holders self determination rights.
Slashdot Mirror
FTFY.
So are you saying he should do away with the computer altogether? Otherwise what are you trying to say when you criticize his tool choice?
Copyright is not enough, trademark is not enough, now we are supposed to pay for just making a reference to something?
Then again the maximum speed is almost certainly measured without any wind.
People visit dangerous ares all the time. In the case of Chernobyl no one sane goes in without a Geiger counter.
'The MARKET' does not have copyright, if you want to argue about 'the MARKET', pick a field that doesn't have government protected monopolies.
Cartel much?
IE6, initial release: August 27, 2001.
Latest version of HTTPS, formally specified: May 2000.
Whatever reason they might have for choosing a proprietary system, probably using ActiveX, it wasn't the fact that the rest of the world was in a state of chaotic lack of encryption. Now if this is system significantly older then even IE6, then you might have a point, but HTTPS has been around for a bit as well.
That doesn't make the title misleading, it's not saying that 'Firefox' is the most popular browser worldwide, it's making the claim that 'Firefox 3.5'. More than that the actual summary clearly references the different versions. This is all about the dynamic of upgrades, I see no indications that the submitter tried to mislead.
One is popular, the other is not. Free software is not measured by the amount of addons, but by the ability of someone to bury you with a lawsuit if they choose to do so.
Do you sell software? Or do you sell your ability to write software? In the later case free software doesn't really interfere, and sometimes helps (low-cost development tools, pre-made code if the client doesn't care about the license as long as they can use it). As for everything else, you still don't have a right to make money doing whatever you prefer, otherwise we'd see some odd professions along with many anachronistic ones.
If you completely miss the '3.5', then it's a reading comprehension problem, not a title problem. The wording isn't misleading at all, in fact it's very precise. And it's quite an important stat too, IE is so fragmented that even the laziest developers will find it hard to target it exclusively (as noted IE versions are quite different).
...take 5 minutes and no tools to create. Besides, something as forgetting to lock your back door should not make one fear prosecution in a world where homeowners (no protection for renters?) don't have to fear it for attacking intruders, should it?
Bob works a late shift. Besides, something completely out of your control, like when an intruder decides to come by, should not one make fear prosecution in a world like that? Intruders would presumably switch their schedules if it did...
Ah, no fear for the brave home defender, unless they lack witnesses that is, or the witnesses stay out of the way because the brave home defender says that they should, while he checks out the noise.
Bob, thanks for letting me borrow your truck, but I forgot my baseball bat, could you bring it over tonight on the way home? The back door is open.
It was horrible officer, I heard this noise from the back door. I grabbed my gun and went to investigate and suddenly this man was coming towards... Bob! God lord Bob, why didn't you turn on the light!
Same is the case for taxes. However I'm not the one calling for abolition of taxes, nor am I calling taxes stealing.
To be fair, the $300 probably doesn't include the time he put into it.
The problem is that property is not pulled out of vacuum, it's created out of natural resources depriving others of said resources.
I don't? I was questioning libertarian moral grandstanding. In their (your?) opinion the self ownership (under various names, this is a very common one) is a (the?) 'natural' right.
It directly conflicts with self ownership, to enforce property rights on things the owner doesn't directly control at the given moment they, or a person acting on their behalf, would have to violate the thief's self ownership. The thief on the other hand can easily take things without ever harming, seeing or indeed, even knowing who the owner was.
My comment wasn't expressing my opinion, no matter how much red bullshit you try to pin on me. If you really want my opinion on property: it's a social construct that is almost universally enforced by all governments and is very effective at reducing bloodshed, encouraging maintenance and trade. I have no desire to get rid of the concept.
That is exactly the question I ask libertarians.
Private property does not automatically follow from liberty and freedom as it applies to things that are not humans.
And 'belongs' is a fairly arbitrary concept, that changes as does society. Besides he replied to a post about taking 'fruits of labor', not about taking what 'belongs' to someone.
Seems he uses the common definition...
No, socialism is not defined as things you personally dislike.
If you weren't making any money, you wouldn't have to pay taxes, if he wasn't making any money his employer wouldn't skim off of him. In the end you both want to eat, no?
So no roads, school or police? Does it apply to *all* services, or just the ones you decide it does apply to?
Does 'this' libertarian also wonder why things takes *without* using force should be taken back using force? Or does 'this' libertarian fall into the convenient category of including property rights into the group of 'natural' rights by twisted logic?
Property you can keep on you exists by virtue of personal self determination (that is you have to be attacked for you to take it away). All other types do not, they require you to attack to take them back, violating the new holders self determination rights.