It should be obvious that sending classroom assignments, or newsletters, is not the same thing as sending email for "Give her multiple orgasms". The ISP is targeting common spam, not personal email or public announcements.
That is too many words. All you have to do to understand propiatory software practices is to look at what SCO, SGI, and countless of other have done to screen ip ownership: JUST STRIP THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AND PRETEND YOU WROTE IT. Yes, we have seen plenty of it already, and from SCO in particular.
And if this is too much trouble, just claim the GPL is unconstitutional and all the copyright of others is now public domain!
It is one thing for me not do review my post before I send it; although,I am afraid, I will make certain to use a spell checker when my post is submited for the front page on Slashdot.
I have been to lots of countries where the government prohibits you from taking money out of the country, but will allow anyone with bring to their country as much money they want.
In other words, money only gets in and never out.
Just because lots of counties are doing it, at least so it was 20 years ago, it does not prove whether they are right or not, but I am sure very many of these countries have thought about this issue already, and they thought it is a benefit. A benefit to who? Perhaps to the country itself; although, not for the few who have to abide by such restrictions.
Facts are not just phrases like "the bus arrived at 10:12 pm." (Even statements like this one, mathimatitians and philosophers will argue that it is not a fact at all, but just a perception.)
Was Napoleon a homosexual? Was the test fair? Is SCO full of shit?
Such questions are initially opinions, but the more arguments and observation Moglen can write in support to his point of view, these initial opinions start becoming "facts". If I claim that Windows 3.1 is a terrible operating system, this is not just an opinion. Lots, and lots, of experts here will agree with my arguments when I explain in detail my reasons of why "Windows 3.1 sucks". Perhaps, you alrady knwo that Window 3.1 is in fact a terrible system, not just someone's opinion or interpretation.
And what if a teacher gave an unfair test: with the question out of topic, with only one question, or with anyone being allowed to cheat. As a matter of fact, this statement is not just an opinion. It looks more like a statment of fact.
Typical American thinking. Hypopcricy seekers. You cannot think about anything else except of patterns of "hypocricy".
There is no hypocricy in the world. People just value things the way they want, and that is the end of it. Question: Should people avoid hypocricy or value and think according to their benefit ?
Which of these two options makes more sense?
I will be more reserved, and instead of "american thinking", I will instead label it "TV thinking". When rhetoricals arguments on TV are quickly dismissed with the slightest sign of "hypocricy" (this makes the discussion simple, and not overly complicated for your permanent lazy brain), then hear it is: There is no need to think any further!
Re:What will drive Linux adoption
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I understand that linux distributors wish for a wide Linux adaption. But what do *we* gain out of it? The arrival of more morons to the mailing lists? No thanks.
Re:What will drive Linux adoption
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Intresting. But, since when did the Microsoft operating systems proved themselves? Very many of you, have not yet forgotten the Blue Screen of Death. It is still all over the place, and Windows has never proved it itself; and yet, Windows has been widely adapted.
At least Debian told you that they were compromized. If this happed to Sun, Microsft, or IBM, would they be admitting it in public every time this happends? I think, they would rather preserve market share than announce such misfortunes. And how about the cases for which they are not sure? At least, I expect more from Debian than from IBM or Microsoft.
Strange, I thought I have more rights on Linux than SCO. At least, I have the right to distribute the Linux operating system to others. SCO has violated the GPL; thus, they don't even have distribution rights.
(Oh, assuming that is they recognize the validity of the GPL, for if not, that will be one additional reason they cannot legally distribute Linux; although, almost everyone else on Earth is free to distribute!)
but put forth thought out arguements rather than flamebate overstatement.
Really? And how can he do that when two sentences earlier you have already asked him to shut-up his mouth because he is not an economist?
My good Sir, in this coffee-house we don't have to present credentials when we discourse about banking, the weather, software, politics, or anything else. Most conversations here are between friends. Only ideological fanatics (like yourself) who will interrupt a good speech to insult and degrade the speaker should have diplomas. It you are an expert, yes, only then you can demand that others shut-up their mouth.
Nobody need to help to assume that Microsoft is behind this. It is public knowledge that Microsoft funded SCO (in exchange for purching 1-year Linux "licenses", which they do not need, or they could get for free.). No, is not a secret that Microsoft has funded SCO; see their official announcement.
But some of you pretend to be so dump, that even when you see money changing hands, you still don't believe that Microsoft is behind this. What more will it take?
I am afraid, the argument is still the same. Even if I admit your argument, I think you must admit in return that making the machine (that makes the shoes) is more important than finding the cure of cancer. The argument remains the same.
And by the way, I never thought that buying something at $3, then selling it at $4, is form of high intelligence. At least, making your own shoes seems a lot harder.
No, no, no! There is more to life than using tool A to solve problem B. Thre is much more; at least, there should be!
I wish to meet that person who can make his own shoes, can saw his own cloths, can build his own computer, and who can build his own car. His time spend would not have been a waste, on the contrary, it would have make him a better person. A more aware person than the peson who just buy's a ferrari, who just buys his own whore, and who just buys tool A to accomplish task B with the least pain possible.
If I had a choice, would would choose to start a conversation with the person who able to make his own shoes than the person who just buys them.
And how exactly will SCO threaten the Movie Industry? Nobody takes SCO's threats seriously, not in Japan, not in IBM, and not even on Slashdot! Nothing to worry about.
SCO needs to show proof for their claims. Apparently, they are not willing to do so even in court. It is safe to ignore these idiots.
This assumes, of course, that the main aim of SCO is to profit from a sale or from the lawsuit itself. What if SCO is just a puppet for Microsoft, for the benefit of Microsoft in its anti-Linux & anti-GPL campaign in exchange for anual payments to SCO? In this case, the lawfirm has been duped to work for free for income that was never planned to arrive.
Somehow, most announcements are designed to mislead us toforget that SCO is not working for Microsoft, when we all know that they do!
Most business welcome free-of-charge and Free Sofware. When their cost of purchace is zero dollar, most business are not frightened at all! They love it.
If history is any guide, big businesses love receiving things for free (especially when it is of high quality). I am afraid it is the opposite, big business are scared only when they actually have to pay fair prices.
1. The "phase out" period is great idea. Since my income employees many people ( the mortgage company, the local computer store, the night-outs, and my weekend boating trips), it is only fair that before a company decides to close its factory it must provide notice well in advance to its employees (and by extension, to the companies that my income employ). The logic is the same: we don't want to impose sudden harm to a great number of people.
2. The assumption here is that IP, in general, is against the interests of the public. Should we ban at-once the ownership of slaves, the pollution of environment, spying, and cocaine traffic, or should we phase them out over the next 10 years. The answer is now! And what happens to our people who now trade cocaine and will be forced out a job? Well, that is another problem altogether. We can take care of the them if we want (if there is a will, that is easy), but it has nothing to do with when to ban cocaine, IP, or spying.
You started with a good rebutal, then moved astray.
It is true, Free Software is not just another competitor, Free Software is a low priced (or free) competitor. It is tough conpeting against free-of-charge products, even if they have a less competitive product. I would be quite happy if my car or boat was free-of-charge (even with less features).
As for the long-term future of Free Software and competition with commerial products, I am afraid Free Software will rule supreme. Or, at least, it will have a perpetual affect on competitive products even if it loses each fight.
How many years into the future is not the real issue. Who knows what will happen between now and year 2150; it could be repealed at any time before we this year is reached. It bet it easily could, and besides we are probably talking seveal World Wars between now and then. Lots of things can happen, not to mention that we will no longer be alive for our genaration to worry.
The big issue whether the IP silliness becomes retroactiove. This is the main issue.
As a compromise, I suggest that Disney and Motion Pictures get all the IP the want (there product is crap anyway, who really desires them?) and just abolish all copyrights on books and everywhere else.
1. Who cares if western companies rely on IP laws and will (temporally) suffer financial difficulties. Does anyone care when *I* suffer financial difficulties?
2. If copyright is abolished, companies will move into other things. Instead of money being invested in IP, it will be invested in something else (if tomaties become illegal, farmers will switch to lettuce. They will not go out of business.)
Saying that some existing business will suffer is not much of an argument, for the same reason that marijuana business "suffer" when pot is illegal. No, they don't suffer, they switch into computers, fuel cells, diapers, or other things. A
Slashdot Mirror
It should be obvious that sending classroom
assignments, or newsletters, is not the
same thing as sending email for "Give her multiple
orgasms". The ISP is targeting common spam,
not personal email or public announcements.
do to understand propiatory software practices
is to look at what SCO, SGI, and countless of
other have done to screen ip ownership:
JUST STRIP THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AND PRETEND
YOU WROTE IT. Yes, we have seen plenty of it
already, and from SCO in particular.
And if this is too much trouble, just claim
the GPL is unconstitutional and all the copyright
of others is now public domain!
We have heard enough from the rope dancers.
And "applyed" is not "applied" either.
It is one thing for me not do review my
post before I send it; although,I am afraid, I
will make certain to use a spell checker
when my post is submited for the front page
on Slashdot.
the government prohibits you from taking money
out of the country, but will allow anyone
with bring to their country as much money they
want.
In other words, money only gets in and never out.
Just because lots of counties are doing it,
at least so it was 20 years ago, it does not
prove whether they are right or not, but I am
sure very many of these countries have thought
about this issue already, and they thought it
is a benefit. A benefit to who? Perhaps to
the country itself; although, not for the few
who have to abide by such restrictions.
arrived at 10:12 pm." (Even statements
like this one, mathimatitians and philosophers
will argue that it is not a fact at all, but just
a perception.)
Was Napoleon a homosexual? Was the test fair?
Is SCO full of shit?
Such questions are initially opinions, but
the more arguments and observation Moglen
can write in support to his point of view,
these initial opinions start becoming "facts".
If I claim that Windows 3.1 is a terrible
operating system, this is not just an opinion.
Lots, and lots, of experts here will agree
with my arguments when I explain in detail
my reasons of why "Windows 3.1 sucks". Perhaps,
you alrady knwo that Window 3.1 is in fact
a terrible system, not just someone's opinion
or interpretation.
And what if a teacher gave an unfair test: with the
question out of topic, with only one question,
or with anyone being allowed to cheat. As a
matter of fact, this statement is not just
an opinion. It looks more like a statment of fact.
cannot think about anything else except of patterns of
"hypocricy".
There is no hypocricy in the world. People just
value things the way they want, and that is the end of
it. Question: Should people avoid hypocricy
or value and think according to their benefit ?
Which of these two options makes more sense?
I will be more reserved, and instead of
"american thinking", I will instead label it
"TV thinking". When rhetoricals arguments on TV
are quickly dismissed with the slightest sign
of "hypocricy" (this makes the discussion simple,
and not overly complicated for your permanent lazy brain),
then hear it is: There is no need to think
any further!
I understand that linux distributors wish
for a wide Linux adaption. But what do *we*
gain out of it? The arrival of more morons
to the mailing lists? No thanks.
Intresting. But, since when did
the Microsoft operating systems proved themselves?
Very many of you, have not yet forgotten
the Blue Screen of Death. It is still all over
the place, and Windows has never proved it itself;
and yet, Windows has been widely adapted.
At least Debian told you that they were
compromized. If this happed to Sun, Microsft, or IBM,
would they be admitting it in public every
time this happends? I think, they would rather
preserve market share than announce such
misfortunes. And how about the cases for which
they are not sure? At least, I expect more
from Debian than from IBM or Microsoft.
Linux than SCO. At least, I have the right
to distribute the Linux operating system to
others. SCO has violated the GPL; thus, they
don't even have distribution rights.
(Oh, assuming that is they recognize the
validity of the GPL, for if not, that will
be one additional reason they cannot legally
distribute Linux; although, almost everyone
else on Earth is free to distribute!)
but put forth thought out arguements rather than flamebate overstatement.
Really? And how can he do that when two sentences earlier you have already
asked him to shut-up his mouth because he is not an economist?
My good Sir, in this coffee-house we don't have to present credentials
when we discourse about banking, the weather, software, politics,
or anything else. Most conversations here are between friends.
Only ideological fanatics (like yourself) who will interrupt a good speech to
insult and degrade the speaker should have diplomas.
It you are an expert, yes, only then you can demand
that others shut-up their mouth.
Microsoft is behind this. It is public
knowledge that Microsoft funded SCO (in
exchange for purching 1-year Linux "licenses", which
they do not need, or they could get for free.).
No, is not a secret that Microsoft has
funded SCO; see their official announcement.
But some of you pretend to be so dump, that even when
you see money changing hands, you still don't
believe that Microsoft is behind this. What more will
it take?
financially assisting SCO ?
Ha, Microsoft has already public announce to
the whole world that they have paid millions
of dollars to SCO. It has never been a secret.
Even if I admit your argument, I think you
must admit in return that making the machine
(that makes the shoes) is more important than
finding the cure of cancer. The argument
remains the same.
And by the way, I never thought that buying
something at $3, then selling it at $4, is
form of high intelligence. At least, making
your own shoes seems a lot harder.
this activity is more important than discovring the
cure for cancer, or landing to the moon? Yes.
You did not understand me at all, or perhaps
you don't want to even try. That is not good
for a conversation.
I also thought the same thing about my first
wife. But after further investigation, I
decided to to marry her and one else.
How can you determine if you like an OS after
only a few days? It takes me *months* to decide
on such things.
tool A to solve problem B. Thre is much more;
at least, there should be!
I wish to meet that person who can make his
own shoes, can saw his own cloths, can build his
own computer, and who can build his own car. His
time spend would not have been a waste, on
the contrary, it would have make him a better
person. A more aware person than the peson
who just buy's a ferrari, who just buys his
own whore, and who just buys tool A to accomplish
task B with the least pain possible.
If I had a choice, would would choose to
start a conversation with the person who
able to make his own shoes than the person
who just buys them.
Industry? Nobody takes SCO's threats seriously,
not in Japan, not in IBM, and not
even on Slashdot! Nothing to worry about.
SCO needs to show proof for their claims. Apparently,
they are not willing to do so even in court. It
is safe to ignore these idiots.
of SCO is to profit from a sale or from the
lawsuit itself. What if SCO is just a puppet
for Microsoft, for the benefit of Microsoft
in its anti-Linux & anti-GPL campaign in
exchange for anual payments to SCO? In this
case, the lawfirm has been duped to work for
free for income that was never planned to arrive.
Somehow, most announcements are designed to
mislead us toforget that SCO is not working
for Microsoft, when we all know that they do!
Sofware. When their cost of purchace is zero
dollar, most business are not frightened at
all! They love it.
If history is any guide, big businesses love
receiving things for free (especially when
it is of high quality). I am afraid it is the
opposite, big business are scared only when they actually
have to pay fair prices.
How can you s/// to remove the watermark, when
you don't know the watermak sequence?
1. The "phase out" period is great idea. Since my income employees many people ( the
mortgage company, the local computer store, the night-outs, and my weekend boating trips),
it is only fair that before a company decides to close its factory it must
provide notice well in advance to its employees (and by extension, to the companies
that my income employ). The logic is the same: we don't want to impose sudden harm to
a great number of people.
2. The assumption here is that IP, in general, is against the interests of the public.
Should we ban at-once the ownership of slaves, the pollution of environment, spying,
and cocaine traffic, or should we phase them out over the next 10 years.
The answer is now! And what happens to our people who now trade cocaine and will
be forced out a job? Well, that is another problem altogether. We can take care of
the them if we want (if there is a will, that is easy), but it has nothing to do with
when to ban cocaine, IP, or spying.
It is true, Free Software is not just another
competitor, Free Software is a low priced (or
free) competitor. It is tough conpeting against
free-of-charge products, even if they have
a less competitive product. I would be quite
happy if my car or boat was free-of-charge
(even with less features).
As for the long-term future of Free Software
and competition with commerial products, I am
afraid Free Software will rule supreme. Or, at
least, it will have a perpetual affect on competitive
products even if it loses each fight.
real issue. Who knows what will happen between
now and year 2150; it could be repealed at any time
before we this year is reached. It bet it easily
could, and besides we are probably talking seveal
World Wars between now and then. Lots of things
can happen, not to mention that we will no longer
be alive for our genaration to worry.
The big issue whether the IP silliness becomes retroactiove.
This is the main issue.
As a compromise, I suggest that Disney and Motion
Pictures get all the IP the want (there product
is crap anyway, who really desires them?) and
just abolish all copyrights on books and everywhere else.
1. Who cares if western companies rely on IP
laws and will (temporally) suffer financial
difficulties. Does anyone care when *I* suffer
financial difficulties?
2. If copyright is abolished, companies will
move into other things. Instead of money being
invested in IP, it will be invested in something
else (if tomaties become illegal, farmers will
switch to lettuce. They will not go out of business.)
Saying that some existing business will suffer
is not much of an argument, for the same reason
that marijuana business "suffer" when pot is illegal. No,
they don't suffer, they switch into computers,
fuel cells, diapers, or other things. A