The amendment was not only for defence against a British invasion but also for defence against a tyrannical federal govt.
If the government was really out of control, would a few statements in the constitution really stop them from unarming all its citizens?
The only gain I could see from having the amendment is the awareness it gives to the idea that an armed revolution against a tyrannical government is nothing to feel guilty about.
Maybe that is good enough and maybe it is necessary. What do you think?
1. There is a [higher being/a collective of higher beings/a higher force] which must be [revered/worshipped/honored].
My (limited) understanding of Buddhism says Buddhism does not require the existance of higher beings and does not require worship, reverence or fear of any sort. Its teaching encourages each individual to develop themselves in order to escape the cycle of karma and suffering. Any mention of gods and deities are actually are actually adaptations of the religion to local culture and not a necessary component of Buddhist life.
If I start handing out free cookies in the street in front of a bakery, I'm not breaking the law. In fact I'm a major benefit to society, because people get free cookies. Whether the bakery goes out of business isn't my problem.
Bad analogy.
It is a problem for a lot of people if you put the bakery out of business and then stop providing cookies. Then there'd be no cookies to be had.
Suppose Microsoft give out their XBoxes for free and put Sony out of business and then once Sony is out, they lump on a huge tax per game. This is predatory pricing and should be illegal.
How is that different to open source?
Open source by its nature means it cannot be monopolised on and its usefulness is perpetual. Unlike the predatory giver, it is simply impossible for open source to stop giving.
I was wondering... isn't the most ideal application for regenerative braking to use them in trains? Electric powered trains are permanently connected to the grid and they can return power to the grid, by-passing the need for batteries altogether.
Can playfair be protected under the GNU GPL and be illegal in the US (under the DMCA) at the same time?
The GNU GPL doesn't protect software, copyright does. Maybe we should ask: Can playfair be protected under copyright and be illegal in the US (under the DMCA) at the same time?
that's like blaming Ford that your stolen car can't be serviced.
I wouldn't blame Ford for not servicing stolen cars. I would blame Ford for producing a car that is faulty to the extent that it poses a risk to the general public regardless of whether the care was stolen or not. The distinction is extremely clear.
Make no mistake that if a thief steals a car and the car blows up due to a manufacturing fault, the car maker is responsible for his death.
Just because there is an extra guilty party and that party had a role to play in his own death does not absolve the manufacturer of responsibility.
It may or may not sound perverted to you, but if you think about it, that's the way it has to be. The thief is wholly responsible for the theft and the maker is wholly responsible for the fault. It's as simple as that.
Microsoft does not have the responsibility to supply the pirates with newer service packs (add more features etc.)
Service packs are not suppose to have new features anyway. They're only suppose to fix broken ones. It's bad policy to add new features because doing so, might break something. New features should either be distributed as addons or as a product upgrade.
Since broken features are likely to expose security flaws, service packs should be as freely available as security fixes.
What do the models say about WIMPs interacting with WIMPs? Are there suppose WIMP 'planets' and WIMP stars too? Or do they interact so weakly among themselves that they just smear out in clouds that don't collapse?
Probably the main one is to work around different compilers, OSs, architectures, and platforms. But Java is one platform; if you need to do something that different on each underlying OS or system, then you're doing something wrong!
Although sometimes, you're wrapping OS services (ie. around JNI code) because the Java API doesn't provide the functionality you want.
Personally, I don't care if Java is GPLed or not. GPL was raised because many believe that GPL is one of the more fork resistant open source licenses, which was McNealy's primary concern.
Any GPL compatible open source license will do.
I don't know if it wasn't intentional, but notice that Gosling in the article does not mention forking as a concern.
If it passes the test suite, then it's considered behaviourally the same. Sure - the might be some subtle difference in the behaviour of the implementation but either the difference is desired (eg. one is a research project into making the VM faster) or there is an oversight in the test suite/specification which needs to be fixed.
That's all we as users care about really (All that fuss about "open standards" remember?).
So why is open source important?
This is what Gosling said:
Again yes, they do have the source. It's also true that anyone can get the source. The major restriction is that if folks want to redistrubute their changes, they have to pass the test suite. Which means that about the only thing that they could get from liberalization is to be able to skip testing.
What we need to understand is that "skip testing" is a very important part of open source. That open source developers want to "Skip testing" doesn't they want to create incompatible implementations per se. It's just that the nature of the requires the distribution of implementations that don't pass the test suite in the course of development. How else will they do beta testing or share their code changes with other open source developers?
Does the Java license allow this? The article doesn't say - and I don't know, but it is something to think about.
For a moment I was excited about the possibility of incorporating the best of Solaris into Linux - but now I have second thoughts. Unless copyright issues are cleared up on why Sun licensed "IP" from SCO we'd better not touch Solaris even if it was GPLed.
Dammit... Missed out a line. Now I remember why I should always increment line numbers by 10.
Easy. Just remember that GOTO is your friend. You only need to replace line 12 with a GOTO to a line number you haven't used before and code away.
10 PRINT "Happy Birthday to you"
11 PRINT "Happy Birthday to you"
12 GOTO 1001
13 END
1001 PRINT "Happy Birthday dear BASIC"
1002 PRINT "Happy Birthday to you"
1003 GOTO 13
Shit. Just one more thing...
10 PRINT "Happy Birthday to you"
11 PRINT "Happy Birthday to you"
12 GOTO 1001
13 END
1001 PRINT "Happy Birthday dear BASIC"
1002 GOTO 1004
1003 GOTO 13
1004 PRINT "Happy Birthday to you"
1005 PRINT
1006 PRINT "Hip hip hurray!"
1007 PRINT "Hip hip hurray!"
1008 GOTO 1003
See how quick it was to add new functionality? Now you realise the power of GOTO!
Why the need to counter what Microsoft do? Why not just drive in an own direction?
You are overlooking the fact that Mono has two stacks. One Microsoft clone and a home grown solution. The home grown solution is cross platform and not the same direction as Microsoft.
I any case. This isn't a case of choosing between our own direction and Microsoft's direction. It is choosing between a whole mess of open source projects moving in their own way or a coordinated push to integrate disparate open source projects and technologies that currently do not integrate well.
The patent issue has been covered so many times before. When it comes to patents, it doesn't matter if you are cloning Microsoft technologies or building something entirely original - your risk is the same because no matter what you are implementing, you are probably infringing a patent anyway. The only effective defence you have is prior art.
If the universe can interact with something outside the universe, then isn't what we thought was universe actually not the whole universe, but only a small part of a bigger thing more worthy of the name universe?
Once in a blue moon, I press the shift key on the keyboard so that I could type a capitalised word only to fall into a mind lapse. I hold the shift key down, while thinking about what I was going to type only to hear a "schwoooot!" and find the keyboard no longer does what I tell it to do.
Slashdot Mirror
If the USA had any intelligence, they'd pressure France to reject software patents.
If the government was really out of control, would a few statements in the constitution really stop them from unarming all its citizens?
The only gain I could see from having the amendment is the awareness it gives to the idea that an armed revolution against a tyrannical government is nothing to feel guilty about.
Maybe that is good enough and maybe it is necessary. What do you think?
My (limited) understanding of Buddhism says Buddhism does not require the existance of higher beings and does not require worship, reverence or fear of any sort. Its teaching encourages each individual to develop themselves in order to escape the cycle of karma and suffering. Any mention of gods and deities are actually are actually adaptations of the religion to local culture and not a necessary component of Buddhist life.
Bad analogy.
It is a problem for a lot of people if you put the bakery out of business and then stop providing cookies. Then there'd be no cookies to be had.
Suppose Microsoft give out their XBoxes for free and put Sony out of business and then once Sony is out, they lump on a huge tax per game. This is predatory pricing and should be illegal.
How is that different to open source?
Open source by its nature means it cannot be monopolised on and its usefulness is perpetual. Unlike the predatory giver, it is simply impossible for open source to stop giving.
The American way has be redefined so often and by so many people, that it has become things vague concept that's lost all meaning.
I was wondering ... isn't the most ideal application for regenerative braking to use them in trains? Electric powered trains are permanently connected to the grid and they can return power to the grid, by-passing the need for batteries altogether.
Open source is one of the more responsible ways of "end of lifing" a product.
The GNU GPL doesn't protect software, copyright does. Maybe we should ask: Can playfair be protected under copyright and be illegal in the US (under the DMCA) at the same time?
I wouldn't blame Ford for not servicing stolen cars. I would blame Ford for producing a car that is faulty to the extent that it poses a risk to the general public regardless of whether the care was stolen or not. The distinction is extremely clear.
Make no mistake that if a thief steals a car and the car blows up due to a manufacturing fault, the car maker is responsible for his death.
Just because there is an extra guilty party and that party had a role to play in his own death does not absolve the manufacturer of responsibility.
It may or may not sound perverted to you, but if you think about it, that's the way it has to be. The thief is wholly responsible for the theft and the maker is wholly responsible for the fault. It's as simple as that.
Justice is blind. So they say.
Service packs are not suppose to have new features anyway. They're only suppose to fix broken ones. It's bad policy to add new features because doing so, might break something. New features should either be distributed as addons or as a product upgrade.
Since broken features are likely to expose security flaws, service packs should be as freely available as security fixes.
What do the models say about WIMPs interacting with WIMPs? Are there suppose WIMP 'planets' and WIMP stars too? Or do they interact so weakly among themselves that they just smear out in clouds that don't collapse?
Or does .gnu have it right?
thumps are quavers thump s are crotchets. The prius is for pianissimo, obviously.
Has it ever occured to you that a totally different implementation conforming to the same spec is the same as forking from day 0?
Let's get this straight. Forking is not an issue. Compatibility is.
Probably the main one is to work around different compilers, OSs, architectures, and platforms. But Java is one platform; if you need to do something that different on each underlying OS or system, then you're doing something wrong!
Although sometimes, you're wrapping OS services (ie. around JNI code) because the Java API doesn't provide the functionality you want.
Personally, I don't care if Java is GPLed or not. GPL was raised because many believe that GPL is one of the more fork resistant open source licenses, which was McNealy's primary concern.
Any GPL compatible open source license will do.
I don't know if it wasn't intentional, but notice that Gosling in the article does not mention forking as a concern.
If it passes the test suite, then it's considered behaviourally the same. Sure - the might be some subtle difference in the behaviour of the implementation but either the difference is desired (eg. one is a research project into making the VM faster) or there is an oversight in the test suite/specification which needs to be fixed.
That's all we as users care about really (All that fuss about "open standards" remember?).
So why is open source important?
This is what Gosling said:
Again yes, they do have the source. It's also true that anyone can get the source. The major restriction is that if folks want to redistrubute their changes, they have to pass the test suite. Which means that about the only thing that they could get from liberalization is to be able to skip testing.
What we need to understand is that "skip testing" is a very important part of open source. That open source developers want to "Skip testing" doesn't they want to create incompatible implementations per se. It's just that the nature of the requires the distribution of implementations that don't pass the test suite in the course of development. How else will they do beta testing or share their code changes with other open source developers?
Does the Java license allow this? The article doesn't say - and I don't know, but it is something to think about.
It doesn't matter. In SCO's eyes the whole thing is a "derivative" anyway.
Probably to make us look so that Sun can have the opportunity to preach about the virtues of "open standards" over "open source".
For a moment I was excited about the possibility of incorporating the best of Solaris into Linux - but now I have second thoughts. Unless copyright issues are cleared up on why Sun licensed "IP" from SCO we'd better not touch Solaris even if it was GPLed.
What's wrong with?:
echo "Hello World"
Easy. Just remember that GOTO is your friend. You only need to replace line 12 with a GOTO to a line number you haven't used before and code away.
10 PRINT "Happy Birthday to you"
11 PRINT "Happy Birthday to you"
12 GOTO 1001
13 END
1001 PRINT "Happy Birthday dear BASIC"
1002 PRINT "Happy Birthday to you"
1003 GOTO 13
Shit. Just one more thing ...
10 PRINT "Happy Birthday to you"
11 PRINT "Happy Birthday to you"
12 GOTO 1001
13 END
1001 PRINT "Happy Birthday dear BASIC"
1002 GOTO 1004
1003 GOTO 13
1004 PRINT "Happy Birthday to you"
1005 PRINT
1006 PRINT "Hip hip hurray!"
1007 PRINT "Hip hip hurray!"
1008 GOTO 1003
See how quick it was to add new functionality? Now you realise the power of GOTO!
You are overlooking the fact that Mono has two stacks. One Microsoft clone and a home grown solution. The home grown solution is cross platform and not the same direction as Microsoft.
I any case. This isn't a case of choosing between our own direction and Microsoft's direction. It is choosing between a whole mess of open source projects moving in their own way or a coordinated push to integrate disparate open source projects and technologies that currently do not integrate well.
The patent issue has been covered so many times before. When it comes to patents, it doesn't matter if you are cloning Microsoft technologies or building something entirely original - your risk is the same because no matter what you are implementing, you are probably infringing a patent anyway. The only effective defence you have is prior art.
I don't like what he is saying either.
I know: Let's shoot the messenger!!
If the universe can interact with something outside the universe, then isn't what we thought was universe actually not the whole universe, but only a small part of a bigger thing more worthy of the name universe?
Once in a blue moon, I press the shift key on the keyboard so that I could type a capitalised word only to fall into a mind lapse. I hold the shift key down, while thinking about what I was going to type only to hear a "schwoooot!" and find the keyboard no longer does what I tell it to do.