Of course, where the license is deficient is in not distinguishing if one need only comply with one avenue for obtaining source regardless of the number of ways it may be distributed or if a distribution option must apply for each distribution method.
If the former is the case, the author is completely within his rights. If the latter, then the distribution through a method where he does not comply with 3(a) and supply the source at the time of distribution opens him to the requirements of 3(b). However, he could still choose a method of supplying source which would allow him to charge $3.99 (or more) in distribution costs, since it does not mandate electronic delivery.
My advice: pay the damn fee and post the source yourself. $3.99 isn't excessive to cover distribution costs, which the license does not require to be amortized. Yes, they're "free" once a lot of other things have been paid, but it's not asking much.
They will generate money, but they don't generate jobs long-term. An automated factory is like a data center: a decent chunk of change in property taxes and that's about it. They require almost nobody to staff or keep operational in proportion to the income they generate, so their economic output is almost entirely divorced from the number of people one might assume that much economic output supports.
NYT v. Sullivan was limited to libel suits by public officials regarding press reports detailing their actions within their official capacities, and the actual malice in that case was knowledge that it was a lie or failure to investigate the truth of the claim.
Common law requires the truth to be proven to whatever standard is set by the court. A statement of truth is only an affirmative defense if you can actually prove it is the truth. Making public allegations while not being able to positively prove them isn't protected speech when they are held up as factual and objectively representative of the truth.
Unfortunately there are very few people who are capable of even the concept of living that frugally, let alone actually going through with it, and not feeling as though they're being served some terrible rights-violating injustice.
I think you're probably the only other person I've heard from who has the same outlook I do coupled with the lack of income not to be called a hypocrite for having that outlook.
Barring actual disasters which cannot be foreseen, people who work full-time and have financial problems are doing so by choice. For those who play the "children" card, that's a choice too. And note, I'm not talking about doing without modern conveniences like entertainment, electronics, cell phones, internet access, or the like either.
I'm sure someone will point out something which is obviously actually out of their control (already covered above), but that straw man is so comfortable for people it would be shocking for it to not make at least one appearance.
Personally, I think capital gains should be one of the only things classified as income, and they should. Defining wages as income is one of the shittiest things that's ever been foisted on a population of people.
Defamation doesn't work the same way, because it is typically quite easy to provide evidence that casts doubt on the truth of the defendant's claims. Once that's been done, the person who made alleged defamatory remarks must prove that they had a factual basis. In case there is little or no evidence jewelry was lost or stolen by the contractors, such support will be very hard to come by.
I used to pirate a lot of content, because the structure of cable and satellite is horrible. Since NetFlix streaming came along, that amount has dropped to almost nothing.
The people who pirate everything do so either A) because they can, B) because they can't afford to do otherwise, or C) as a preview to determine if it's worth buying. I don't really know anyone who regularly pirates material who doesn't fall into one of those three categories. I'm sure they exist, but they're certainly not the most prevalent. In fact, the latter actually tend to be the largest consumers of entertainment in terms of dollars spent of any people I know.
Of course, this is anecdotal, so it'll be readily dismissed by anyone who is already convinced that it's not true.
There's no perfectly correct analogy, because an individual does not have the ability to force a third party to cover the debt obligations they incur through the use of IOUs.
A bond to cover debts to taxpayers is funded by taking money from taxpayers. It does not create value, it simply moves the column it's entered into. When the actual liquid capital is spent the year it's collected, the bonds written to cover the excess not paid to beneficiaries has no value until it is covered by other means when the bonds come due. Of course, this is all irrelevant now since it's unlikely that new bonds will ever be written for SS moneys deposited into the General Fund.
A loan to yourself is not necessarily bad if there are valid reasons to perform the accounting in that manner. It should never be counted as a net asset though, which is what politicians have tried to pass the SS bonds off as. Sure, it's a net asset for the SS Dept., but there is no valid argument for claiming it's a net asset to the Federal government as a whole.
Search-and-rescue personnel are not innocent parties. They choose employment in a risk-filled field, presumably fully aware of what they are taking on. They are in complete control over whether they put themselves in danger on behalf of someone else. This claim is specious at best.
As for whether they suffer more, I clearly stated it was a guess.
I'm not the person you responded to, but that's certainly true in the world I live in. Every DVDR and CDR unit I've ever disassembled has had exactly one laser, used to both read and write. They operate using the same wavelength. The only difference is in how much power they're designed to dissipate. RW diodes dissipate 20-100x as much power as read-only diodes.
The statement about power is true, though it most certainly would not mean they perform exactly the same. After all, they are not used for the same tasks. A garden hose and a fire hose both deliver water. A fire hose is made of far more durable material than a garden hose, yet they frequently wear out faster due to the vast difference in the tasks for which they are used.
As for physics, increased mass dampens the same vibrational force more effectively.
I would argue the assertion that there is nobody who is incapable of controlling themselves, except for a very narrow definition of "incapable." In terms of personal choice, I consider someone who knowingly places themselves in a position which has consistently lead to personal damage (physical, psychological, emotional, whatever) to be "incapable" of control in regard to whatever that particular circumstance may be. The people I know personally which the forgoing applies to is a not inconsequential percentage of the total number I know fairly well.
Unfortunately, short replies such as the s0nicfreak's leave the extent of their intended application to be open to question. I tend to interpret them to be limited, rather than expansive. I've noticed a correlation between how deeply I read into something and my blood pressure.:)
That's not true when you consider value relative to the party holding the bond. There is only positive value if you consider the Treasury Dept and the Social Security Dept to be separate entities. In fact, they are two parts of the same entity, which makes the bonds value-neutral.
If I hold an IOU from a third party (assuming they will pay), that IOU has a positive value to me. If I hold an IOU from myself, that IOU has no value to me as anything other than an accounting trick.
The fund is depleted each and every year by the sitting Congress. People lay the blame at the feet of certain Presidents, but Congress is the branch of government which controls the access to the purse strings 100%.
Don't get me wrong: most of the Presidents who have held office were scum of some sort, but only a few of them can be blamed for major Congressional expenditures.
Interesting. I wasn't aware that the General Fund was dedicated entirely to Social Security and the balance of government was paid out of something non-existent.
The SS Fund is the left pocket, while the General Fund is the right pocket. SS taxes go into the left pocket. The entirety of the left pocket is then emptied into the right pocket. SS expenditures are tallied and an IOU from the right pocket is placed in the left for the balance. Then the contents of the right pocket are spent entirely.
That is SS in a nutshell. Anything else is sugar coating to make it look like something other than a scam.
While the statistics would probably be fairly hard to accurately compare, I would guess that those who regularly engage in drinking likely suffer more, and greater, injury per capita than those who climb mountains. You might come closer to parity if you were just comparing alpine climbers, due to the danger to even the most experienced among them. Then again, climbers of any stripe don't tend to injure or kill innocent parties. The same can't be said for alcohol.
A lot of the cases where a double-blind study would be unethical, any study would be unethical (e.g. your parachute example).
It is quite true that just because a study is not double-blind it has been manipulated. However, manipulating such a study (even unintentionally) is dramatically easier.
When there is reason to believe bias may be an issue, or those conducting the study decide there might be questions about even the appearance of bias, the use of a double-blind study is not irrelevant at all.
The post by S0ncfreak isn't an assumption. If a person is not capable of control, they do, in fact, have an issue that will not be fixed by divorce. It's the same as saying "If you are agoraphobic, you have issues which divorce alone is not going to fix." While the issue may or may not lead to divorce, it has no impact on the truth of the statement.
Now, if the statement is used to imply a given person cannot control themselves, that would be, absent proof, an assumption. In the abstract, however, the truth of the statement is self-evident.
I'm not sure why you keep conflating making a mistake and having a genuine issue with self-control. One is a trait common to all humans. The other is not.
Slashdot Mirror
No disagreement there.
Personally, I didn't even notice.
It's called an analogy, even if one that (depending on your opinion) doesn't necessarily apply.
Of course, where the license is deficient is in not distinguishing if one need only comply with one avenue for obtaining source regardless of the number of ways it may be distributed or if a distribution option must apply for each distribution method.
If the former is the case, the author is completely within his rights. If the latter, then the distribution through a method where he does not comply with 3(a) and supply the source at the time of distribution opens him to the requirements of 3(b). However, he could still choose a method of supplying source which would allow him to charge $3.99 (or more) in distribution costs, since it does not mandate electronic delivery.
My advice: pay the damn fee and post the source yourself. $3.99 isn't excessive to cover distribution costs, which the license does not require to be amortized. Yes, they're "free" once a lot of other things have been paid, but it's not asking much.
There is a need for skilled human workers, but it is not by any means significant.
They will generate money, but they don't generate jobs long-term. An automated factory is like a data center: a decent chunk of change in property taxes and that's about it. They require almost nobody to staff or keep operational in proportion to the income they generate, so their economic output is almost entirely divorced from the number of people one might assume that much economic output supports.
NYT v. Sullivan was limited to libel suits by public officials regarding press reports detailing their actions within their official capacities, and the actual malice in that case was knowledge that it was a lie or failure to investigate the truth of the claim.
Common law requires the truth to be proven to whatever standard is set by the court. A statement of truth is only an affirmative defense if you can actually prove it is the truth. Making public allegations while not being able to positively prove them isn't protected speech when they are held up as factual and objectively representative of the truth.
Unfortunately there are very few people who are capable of even the concept of living that frugally, let alone actually going through with it, and not feeling as though they're being served some terrible rights-violating injustice.
I think you're probably the only other person I've heard from who has the same outlook I do coupled with the lack of income not to be called a hypocrite for having that outlook.
Barring actual disasters which cannot be foreseen, people who work full-time and have financial problems are doing so by choice. For those who play the "children" card, that's a choice too. And note, I'm not talking about doing without modern conveniences like entertainment, electronics, cell phones, internet access, or the like either.
I'm sure someone will point out something which is obviously actually out of their control (already covered above), but that straw man is so comfortable for people it would be shocking for it to not make at least one appearance.
Personally, I think capital gains should be one of the only things classified as income, and they should. Defining wages as income is one of the shittiest things that's ever been foisted on a population of people.
Unfortunately, almost every revolution in history has either been lead by or had as puppeteer such a person.
Defamation doesn't work the same way, because it is typically quite easy to provide evidence that casts doubt on the truth of the defendant's claims. Once that's been done, the person who made alleged defamatory remarks must prove that they had a factual basis. In case there is little or no evidence jewelry was lost or stolen by the contractors, such support will be very hard to come by.
Because NetFlix is cheap and easy.
I used to pirate a lot of content, because the structure of cable and satellite is horrible. Since NetFlix streaming came along, that amount has dropped to almost nothing.
The people who pirate everything do so either A) because they can, B) because they can't afford to do otherwise, or C) as a preview to determine if it's worth buying. I don't really know anyone who regularly pirates material who doesn't fall into one of those three categories. I'm sure they exist, but they're certainly not the most prevalent. In fact, the latter actually tend to be the largest consumers of entertainment in terms of dollars spent of any people I know.
Of course, this is anecdotal, so it'll be readily dismissed by anyone who is already convinced that it's not true.
There's no perfectly correct analogy, because an individual does not have the ability to force a third party to cover the debt obligations they incur through the use of IOUs.
A bond to cover debts to taxpayers is funded by taking money from taxpayers. It does not create value, it simply moves the column it's entered into. When the actual liquid capital is spent the year it's collected, the bonds written to cover the excess not paid to beneficiaries has no value until it is covered by other means when the bonds come due. Of course, this is all irrelevant now since it's unlikely that new bonds will ever be written for SS moneys deposited into the General Fund.
A loan to yourself is not necessarily bad if there are valid reasons to perform the accounting in that manner. It should never be counted as a net asset though, which is what politicians have tried to pass the SS bonds off as. Sure, it's a net asset for the SS Dept., but there is no valid argument for claiming it's a net asset to the Federal government as a whole.
You missed the point of the absurdity, so I'll take it one further: we're all from the ocean at the end of the day.
Search-and-rescue personnel are not innocent parties. They choose employment in a risk-filled field, presumably fully aware of what they are taking on. They are in complete control over whether they put themselves in danger on behalf of someone else. This claim is specious at best.
As for whether they suffer more, I clearly stated it was a guess.
I'm not the person you responded to, but that's certainly true in the world I live in. Every DVDR and CDR unit I've ever disassembled has had exactly one laser, used to both read and write. They operate using the same wavelength. The only difference is in how much power they're designed to dissipate. RW diodes dissipate 20-100x as much power as read-only diodes.
The statement about power is true, though it most certainly would not mean they perform exactly the same. After all, they are not used for the same tasks. A garden hose and a fire hose both deliver water. A fire hose is made of far more durable material than a garden hose, yet they frequently wear out faster due to the vast difference in the tasks for which they are used.
As for physics, increased mass dampens the same vibrational force more effectively.
No, it's not hard to understand.
I would argue the assertion that there is nobody who is incapable of controlling themselves, except for a very narrow definition of "incapable." In terms of personal choice, I consider someone who knowingly places themselves in a position which has consistently lead to personal damage (physical, psychological, emotional, whatever) to be "incapable" of control in regard to whatever that particular circumstance may be. The people I know personally which the forgoing applies to is a not inconsequential percentage of the total number I know fairly well.
Unfortunately, short replies such as the s0nicfreak's leave the extent of their intended application to be open to question. I tend to interpret them to be limited, rather than expansive. I've noticed a correlation between how deeply I read into something and my blood pressure. :)
That's not true when you consider value relative to the party holding the bond. There is only positive value if you consider the Treasury Dept and the Social Security Dept to be separate entities. In fact, they are two parts of the same entity, which makes the bonds value-neutral.
If I hold an IOU from a third party (assuming they will pay), that IOU has a positive value to me. If I hold an IOU from myself, that IOU has no value to me as anything other than an accounting trick.
The fund is depleted each and every year by the sitting Congress. People lay the blame at the feet of certain Presidents, but Congress is the branch of government which controls the access to the purse strings 100%.
Don't get me wrong: most of the Presidents who have held office were scum of some sort, but only a few of them can be blamed for major Congressional expenditures.
Interesting. I wasn't aware that the General Fund was dedicated entirely to Social Security and the balance of government was paid out of something non-existent.
The SS Fund is the left pocket, while the General Fund is the right pocket. SS taxes go into the left pocket. The entirety of the left pocket is then emptied into the right pocket. SS expenditures are tallied and an IOU from the right pocket is placed in the left for the balance. Then the contents of the right pocket are spent entirely.
That is SS in a nutshell. Anything else is sugar coating to make it look like something other than a scam.
While the statistics would probably be fairly hard to accurately compare, I would guess that those who regularly engage in drinking likely suffer more, and greater, injury per capita than those who climb mountains. You might come closer to parity if you were just comparing alpine climbers, due to the danger to even the most experienced among them. Then again, climbers of any stripe don't tend to injure or kill innocent parties. The same can't be said for alcohol.
Everyone is African at the end of the day.
A lot of the cases where a double-blind study would be unethical, any study would be unethical (e.g. your parachute example).
It is quite true that just because a study is not double-blind it has been manipulated. However, manipulating such a study (even unintentionally) is dramatically easier.
When there is reason to believe bias may be an issue, or those conducting the study decide there might be questions about even the appearance of bias, the use of a double-blind study is not irrelevant at all.
And Steve Job's "cure" wasn't one, ending in his death.
The post by S0ncfreak isn't an assumption. If a person is not capable of control, they do, in fact, have an issue that will not be fixed by divorce. It's the same as saying "If you are agoraphobic, you have issues which divorce alone is not going to fix." While the issue may or may not lead to divorce, it has no impact on the truth of the statement.
Now, if the statement is used to imply a given person cannot control themselves, that would be, absent proof, an assumption. In the abstract, however, the truth of the statement is self-evident.
I'm not sure why you keep conflating making a mistake and having a genuine issue with self-control. One is a trait common to all humans. The other is not.