I call bullshit. I've NEVER been charged for an incoming message, not with Sprint or AT&T Wireless (now Cingular). Maybe some do, but obviously not ALL.
Maybe some one else can better articulate my thoughts, but that is it in a nutshell.
I can better clarify your thoughts in a single sentence:
You're an arrogant and egocentric clod.
It's not an attempt to marginalize "Americans", it's attempt to inject a little humility into an extremely hubristic society. Yeah, we may still be the world's only superpower and yeah we may still be the world's most consumptive society, but the world's getting smaller and the U.S. isn't the center of the universe. Get used to it. I'm convince that the biggest reason that no other term has managed to overtake American to describe a U.S. citizen is because the alternatives either (a) sound stupid (USian? come on...) or (b) are unwieldy (United States of America Citizen, or even U.S. Citizen).
It's much like the lack of a proper gender neutral pronoun in English has lead to oh so many problems (rampant use of he/she, or substituting she for he in a way to counter the overwhelming use of he (for example, most law school textbooks use she for third person pronouns. At first it's a rather noticeable phenomenon but one quickly becomes accustomed to it)). And yes, I know that "it" is technically gender neutral, but nobody like's to be referred to as "it".
And of course anytime the Beatles and Apple Records come up in conversation, it seems somebody has to point out that Michael Jackson gets all the money whenever a Beatles song is played. Time to get up to speed on current events kiddies...
Michael Jackson owns a 50% share of the company that owns the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog. While it is true that he once owned 100% of the publishing rights, he transferred those rights to another company that was formed in a joint venture with Sony.
Furthermore, owning the publishing rights entitles him to half of the royalties from the publishing rights whenever somebody licenses a Beatles song for performance or whatever. The other half goes to the songwriters, McCartney and Lennon's estate.
I'm sure wasting 10 seconds of your oh so precious life googling "Michael Jackson Beatles" or something like that could have found this and much more.
Not always. Some people actually like to have jobs that are meaningful and rewarding. Some people actual value something besides just being able to make ends meet and get a new flat screen tele.
Since you're going to spend about 1/3 (minus time off for vacation (good packages being almost non-existent in the U.S.), holidays, sick time, and cyclical unemployment) of you adult life working, this doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me.
As you can see, "The freedom to use free code in one's own non-free project" is NOT listed as a required freedom for Free Software.
There's a simple explanation for this apparent contradiction: By allowing this freedom would allow you to negate the other freedoms.
It's an example of why absolute freedom doesn't and can't exist within a society. Freedom to do absolutely whatever you want endangers the freedom of others. Absolute freedom is anti-social. There have to be limits to what you can and cannot do in order for everybody to coexist. That's why the debate , even amongst libertarians, is over what limits on freedom are reasonable.
The absence of your stated freedom is required to make the system work. Otherwise, you'd end up with freeloaders who take the work of others, add something to it, close it, and profit off of that work that was given freely. By requiring you to give back when you take you insure that the system continues and functions for all.
You're right, nobody can take the original source code out of the "free" world so long as somebody else has a copy of it. But they CAN take the code, modify it, fix bugs, add in functionality, etc, and refuse to release their forked version back into the world.
Imagine in an alternate universe (because of course they would NEVER try such a thing in this universe) that when MS took the BSD-licensed TCP code they used had modified it to make it incompatible with standard TCP, then using their monopoly power essentially forced the world to adopt to their standard. The original freedom that the BSD license allowed would be meaningless, as now everybody would have to license the new MS/TCP from MS and abide by their rules. Having the original BSD code and the freedom the license allowed wouldn't matter anymore.
Changing the X11 wm will have exactly ZERO effect on the aforementioned programs as well as any other native (Aqua) OS X apps. I still assert that you can NOT change the wm for native programs until you can prove to me otherwise.
For the vast majority of users, the ability to change your wm in X will mean nothing, as the software they use doesn't use X.
I did read the link. While Apple has done a great job of integrating X into the system through the Aqua wm, X still does not have full access to all the goodies of the system, making it "second class" in my opinion. But it may simply be my opinion.
The whole point is that the statement is EASY to misinterpret if you don't realize that you can indeed, WHOLLY replace aqua with an x11 WM.
You can't unless you ONLY RUN X11 APPS. If you run any OS X native apps, then you are stuck with Apple's wm, at least for those apps.
None of this makes the original post less ambiguous. The question remains are you talking only about X11 or are you talking about the entire system.
Technology is not good. Technology is also not bad. Technology is, and that's probably the most you can say about it.
I have to disagree. Technology is not always an ideologically neutral tool. Tools are usually created with a purpose. Sometimes that purpose is good, sometimes it is benign or neutral, sometimes it for something bad. Sometimes a tool can have uses not foreseen by it's inventor, and those tools (whether good or bad) will become the predominate use of the tool. But there is always some reason for creating something, there is always some reason for it to continue to be used.
Recommended reading:
Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television and In the Absence of the Sacred by the unfortunately named Jerry Mander. Even if you disagree with some of his specific arguments or conclusions, he raises a lot of interesting question about the role of technology in society and why we should be more skeptical about new inventions before they are released upon the world. Both are available at fine local bookstores everywhere.
Bottem line is that technology is good and that this is going to make our lives and everyone else who uses the park but is not crazy, lives easier.
Progress is a good thing!!
Let me explain this in the simplest terms possible so that you might understand:
Technology != Progress
Or more correctly, sometimes it is and somtimes it isn't.
Technology has had both good and bad effects upon society. Ignoring that fact puts you in the same tinfoil hat wearing crowd as the "technology is bad" people. You need to learn to be a little more skeptical before you come to such blanket and often misinformed generalizations.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad development. Personally, I think it's quite silly but I can see how reasonable minds may disagree. However, you've apparently made up your mind before even taking the time to think about it.
Okay, I'm now convinced that/. has implemented a new requirement that all moderators be crack addicts.
Yes, the comment was short, but it said everything that needed to be said. It made a valid point, but apparently one that today's dittohead moderators disagreed with, and therefore decided to moderate into oblivion.
I can only conclude that the Bushite philosophy of responding to dissent by stifling it is infecting all of society.
Is there a script that automatically mods all first posts down? While I'll admit that the parent post is not the most civil of posts (and includes a gnaa remark), it's a relevant comment.
First thing to learn for law school: the "right" answer almost always begins with "It depends. ..":)
More law school "wisdom" at the end of the post, but first. ..
With or without the "the", the statement could be interpreted either way, especially in the context of the conversation. Furthermore, given the "relaxed" grammatical conventions of internet boards, it would not be outlandish to assume that the poster was merely being lazy by not including the "the".
Anyhoo, the phrase "OSX window manager functionality" could refer either to the functionality of the window manager itself or to the window manager functionality of the system. It would be reasonable to interpret it either way.
Here's the full conversation:
AC's Post: Macs haven't "just worked" for me very often. And that's before I even factor in their supremely weak window manager with even fewer features than micros~1 windows...
YLFI's Post: If it bothers you, just run X-Windows on top with a window manager of your choice. OSX window manager functionality is a superset of what's available on Linux.
AC is obviously referring to the OS X wm. YLFI is referring to? You (and YLFI would apparently agree) would say that he is referring to the ability to swap in a new wm via X11, therefore the functionality of the SYSTEM is a superset of what's available on GNU/Linux because it has all the GNU/Linux wm's +1.
I reasonably interpreted the statement to imply that he was discussing the functionality of the WM itself. Apparently I misinterpreted his intent, but the statement is ambiguous given that AC is referring to the FUNCTIONALITY of window managers while YLFI is really referring to the CHOICES of window managers.
So I see your (and YLFI's) point, but I stand by my statement as well.
On a side note, I would even disagree with the statement as you and YLFI interpret it because X11 is a second class citizen on OS X. As you can only use the OS X wm for native programs, for most users there is no option to switch window managers. Unless everything you do is in X, you are still stuck with Apple's wm. And if everything you do is in X, then I think you're silly for buying a Mac instead of just outfitting yourself with a cheap PC and installing one of the BSDs or GNU/Linux.
As far as law school goes, what kind of feedback are you looking for?
I go the University of Arizona, which is a pretty good school aside from the crappy library (which of course they're scheduled to start replacing the year that I graduate).
I have lots of good and bad things to say about the whole experience. If you haven't already read it, I do recommend checking out One L by Scott Turow. It's his account of his days as a 1L at HLS in the 70s, and it's still pretty accurate today it seems, even for a non-Ivy school like mine.
My biggest advice for incoming students would be: have an open mind, try new things, but know who you are and what you want before you begin. Or at least have a pretty good idea. Law school will change you, and IMHO if you don't have some sense of self before you begin, it won't change you for the better.
It makes sense, but in the context of the discussion it could have been better clarified.
Macs haven't "just worked" for me very often. And that's before I even factor in their supremely weak window manager with even fewer features than micros~1 windows...
It's apparent to me here that the writer is talking about the WM for OS X, not the WM for Apple's X11.
If it bothers you, just run X-Windows on top with a window manager of your choice. OSX window manager functionality is a superset of what's available on Linux.
You reply by saying run X-Windows, and then note that "OSX window manager functionality is a superset of what's available on Linux." But does your reference to the wm functionality refer to the wm functionality of Apple's X11, or of OS X? Are you referring to the actual functionality of the wm itself or the functionality of the platform (choices of wm, etc)? Your last reply seems to state that you are referring to the wm functionality of Apple's X11, in that you have an additional choice of wm's so that you can pick the option you prefer.
Therefore, I stand by my original reply. It was a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statement, given the context of the conversation. But after your follow-up, your point is clearer.
WARNING: Citing websites like consumerfreedom.com as legitimate sources to support your position (regardless of its actual merit) immediately results in an absolute loss of any credibility you may have once had.
They can file in any district where there is a suitable defendant. Personal jurisdiction is only concerned with whether the courts can get jurisdiction over the defendant, not the plaintiff.
I generally agree with you, but when you're talking about the Constitution, I think that some flexibility is required. To say that it should only be interpreted the same as the founders intended it to be is assinine. It was written over 200 years ago, in a time and under conditions far different then today. Not allowing for any flexibility would make the Constitution itself irrelevant and invite a state of chaos as governmental entities were unable to respond to real problems and issues that result from changing circumstances. I suppose if you're a die hard libertarian who believes in no (or EXTREMELY limited) government, then that all sounds fine and dandy. For people with who still have all of their marbles, it would be unacceptable.
And stretching interpretation isn't may be reckless (that would be a value judgment, one I would disagree with), but it isn't a new precedent. It's been happening for 200 years.
If you drop a booster on my house, I'll sue you into the stone age.
Looking at my bank balance, that won't take very much.
At the least, you may want to consider letting Congress implement some sort of regulation that insures that any "spaceline" has sufficient capital or liability insurance to compensate you. Otherwise, your judgment against a bankrupt corporation will be quite the pyrrhic victory.
As grandparent poster said, sometimes a little regulation isn't such a bad thing. The problem lies in finding the right balance.
That's a pretty narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. While you may be correct that the ORIGINAL intent was to regulate competition amongst the states, the interpretation of the commerce clause has evolved substantially over the years, so the meaning of it TODAY, as in the only moment in time that is completely relevant, it means something much different.
I am assuming that you mean "legislature" where you have stated "legislation".
And that you are either implying that either:
A) the bill has been introduced but is tied up in committee. - or - B) the bill has been passed but not yet signed into law or it is not yet being enforced for some reason.
As it would make no sense for it to be tied up in committee if it has already passed.
Slashdot Mirror
He's right and you're right. That's because copyright violation is both a criminal and civil violation.
I call bullshit. I've NEVER been charged for an incoming message, not with Sprint or AT&T Wireless (now Cingular). Maybe some do, but obviously not ALL.
Maybe some one else can better articulate my thoughts, but that is it in a nutshell.
I can better clarify your thoughts in a single sentence:
You're an arrogant and egocentric clod.
It's not an attempt to marginalize "Americans", it's attempt to inject a little humility into an extremely hubristic society. Yeah, we may still be the world's only superpower and yeah we may still be the world's most consumptive society, but the world's getting smaller and the U.S. isn't the center of the universe. Get used to it. I'm convince that the biggest reason that no other term has managed to overtake American to describe a U.S. citizen is because the alternatives either (a) sound stupid (USian? come on...) or (b) are unwieldy (United States of America Citizen, or even U.S. Citizen).
It's much like the lack of a proper gender neutral pronoun in English has lead to oh so many problems (rampant use of he/she, or substituting she for he in a way to counter the overwhelming use of he (for example, most law school textbooks use she for third person pronouns. At first it's a rather noticeable phenomenon but one quickly becomes accustomed to it)). And yes, I know that "it" is technically gender neutral, but nobody like's to be referred to as "it".
And of course anytime the Beatles and Apple Records come up in conversation, it seems somebody has to point out that Michael Jackson gets all the money whenever a Beatles song is played. Time to get up to speed on current events kiddies...
Michael Jackson owns a 50% share of the company that owns the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog. While it is true that he once owned 100% of the publishing rights, he transferred those rights to another company that was formed in a joint venture with Sony.
Furthermore, owning the publishing rights entitles him to half of the royalties from the publishing rights whenever somebody licenses a Beatles song for performance or whatever. The other half goes to the songwriters, McCartney and Lennon's estate.
I'm sure wasting 10 seconds of your oh so precious life googling "Michael Jackson Beatles" or something like that could have found this and much more.
That's right, it's a "police action". And the other faction is made up of "unlawful combatants".
I drive a manual shift car too, by the way.
or to paraphrase:
Look at me! I'm uber-cool super l33t smarter than all you plebes! Look at me! Look at me!
Nobody gives a shit what kind of car you drive, stop trying to prove your dick is bigger than everybody else's. We all know better.
Not always. Some people actually like to have jobs that are meaningful and rewarding. Some people actual value something besides just being able to make ends meet and get a new flat screen tele.
Since you're going to spend about 1/3 (minus time off for vacation (good packages being almost non-existent in the U.S.), holidays, sick time, and cyclical unemployment) of you adult life working, this doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me.
What it seems like is being said is that Free Software is Open Source whose derivatives are required to be Open Source.
Except that doesn't quite work, as the BSD license is "free" according to the FSF, and it has no such requirement.
As you can see, "The freedom to use free code in one's own non-free project" is NOT listed as a required freedom for Free Software.
There's a simple explanation for this apparent contradiction: By allowing this freedom would allow you to negate the other freedoms.
It's an example of why absolute freedom doesn't and can't exist within a society. Freedom to do absolutely whatever you want endangers the freedom of others. Absolute freedom is anti-social. There have to be limits to what you can and cannot do in order for everybody to coexist. That's why the debate , even amongst libertarians, is over what limits on freedom are reasonable.
The absence of your stated freedom is required to make the system work. Otherwise, you'd end up with freeloaders who take the work of others, add something to it, close it, and profit off of that work that was given freely. By requiring you to give back when you take you insure that the system continues and functions for all.
You're right, nobody can take the original source code out of the "free" world so long as somebody else has a copy of it. But they CAN take the code, modify it, fix bugs, add in functionality, etc, and refuse to release their forked version back into the world.
Imagine in an alternate universe (because of course they would NEVER try such a thing in this universe) that when MS took the BSD-licensed TCP code they used had modified it to make it incompatible with standard TCP, then using their monopoly power essentially forced the world to adopt to their standard. The original freedom that the BSD license allowed would be meaningless, as now everybody would have to license the new MS/TCP from MS and abide by their rules. Having the original BSD code and the freedom the license allowed wouldn't matter anymore.
Can you run Word in X11? Photoshop? iTunes?
:)
Changing the X11 wm will have exactly ZERO effect on the aforementioned programs as well as any other native (Aqua) OS X apps. I still assert that you can NOT change the wm for native programs until you can prove to me otherwise.
For the vast majority of users, the ability to change your wm in X will mean nothing, as the software they use doesn't use X.
I did read the link. While Apple has done a great job of integrating X into the system through the Aqua wm, X still does not have full access to all the goodies of the system, making it "second class" in my opinion. But it may simply be my opinion.
The whole point is that the statement is EASY to misinterpret if you don't realize that you can indeed, WHOLLY replace aqua with an x11 WM.
You can't unless you ONLY RUN X11 APPS. If you run any OS X native apps, then you are stuck with Apple's wm, at least for those apps.
None of this makes the original post less ambiguous. The question remains are you talking only about X11 or are you talking about the entire system.
We can still be friends though, right?
Technology is not good. Technology is also not bad. Technology is, and that's probably the most you can say about it.
I have to disagree. Technology is not always an ideologically neutral tool. Tools are usually created with a purpose. Sometimes that purpose is good, sometimes it is benign or neutral, sometimes it for something bad. Sometimes a tool can have uses not foreseen by it's inventor, and those tools (whether good or bad) will become the predominate use of the tool. But there is always some reason for creating something, there is always some reason for it to continue to be used.
Recommended reading:
Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television and In the Absence of the Sacred by the unfortunately named Jerry Mander. Even if you disagree with some of his specific arguments or conclusions, he raises a lot of interesting question about the role of technology in society and why we should be more skeptical about new inventions before they are released upon the world. Both are available at fine local bookstores everywhere.
Bottem line is that technology is good and that this is going to make our lives and everyone else who uses the park but is not crazy, lives easier.
Progress is a good thing!!
Let me explain this in the simplest terms possible so that you might understand:
Technology != Progress
Or more correctly, sometimes it is and somtimes it isn't.
Technology has had both good and bad effects upon society. Ignoring that fact puts you in the same tinfoil hat wearing crowd as the "technology is bad" people. You need to learn to be a little more skeptical before you come to such blanket and often misinformed generalizations.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad development. Personally, I think it's quite silly but I can see how reasonable minds may disagree. However, you've apparently made up your mind before even taking the time to think about it.
Oh, and spelling is also a good thing.
Bottom
Okay, I'm now convinced that /. has implemented a new requirement that all moderators be crack addicts.
Yes, the comment was short, but it said everything that needed to be said. It made a valid point, but apparently one that today's dittohead moderators disagreed with, and therefore decided to moderate into oblivion.
I can only conclude that the Bushite philosophy of responding to dissent by stifling it is infecting all of society.
Is there a script that automatically mods all first posts down? While I'll admit that the parent post is not the most civil of posts (and includes a gnaa remark), it's a relevant comment.
First thing to learn for law school: the "right" answer almost always begins with "It depends. . ." :)
.
More law school "wisdom" at the end of the post, but first. .
With or without the "the", the statement could be interpreted either way, especially in the context of the conversation. Furthermore, given the "relaxed" grammatical conventions of internet boards, it would not be outlandish to assume that the poster was merely being lazy by not including the "the".
Anyhoo, the phrase "OSX window manager functionality" could refer either to the functionality of the window manager itself or to the window manager functionality of the system. It would be reasonable to interpret it either way.
Here's the full conversation:
AC's Post:
Macs haven't "just worked" for me very often. And that's before I even factor in their supremely weak window manager with even fewer features than micros~1 windows...
YLFI's Post:
If it bothers you, just run X-Windows on top with a window manager of your choice. OSX window manager functionality is a superset of what's available on Linux.
AC is obviously referring to the OS X wm. YLFI is referring to? You (and YLFI would apparently agree) would say that he is referring to the ability to swap in a new wm via X11, therefore
the functionality of the SYSTEM is a superset of what's available on GNU/Linux because it has all the GNU/Linux wm's +1.
I reasonably interpreted the statement to imply that he was discussing the functionality of the WM itself. Apparently I misinterpreted his intent, but the statement is ambiguous given that AC is referring to the FUNCTIONALITY of window managers while YLFI is really referring to the CHOICES of window managers.
So I see your (and YLFI's) point, but I stand by my statement as well.
On a side note, I would even disagree with the statement as you and YLFI interpret it because X11 is a second class citizen on OS X. As you can only use the OS X wm for native programs, for most users there is no option to switch window managers. Unless everything you do is in X, you are still stuck with Apple's wm. And if everything you do is in X, then I think you're silly for buying a Mac instead of just outfitting yourself with a cheap PC and installing one of the BSDs or GNU/Linux.
As far as law school goes, what kind of feedback are you looking for?
I go the University of Arizona, which is a pretty good school aside from the crappy library (which of course they're scheduled to start replacing the year that I graduate).
I have lots of good and bad things to say about the whole experience. If you haven't already read it, I do recommend checking out One L by Scott Turow. It's his account of his days as a 1L at HLS in the 70s, and it's still pretty accurate today it seems, even for a non-Ivy school like mine.
My biggest advice for incoming students would be: have an open mind, try new things, but know who you are and what you want before you begin. Or at least have a pretty good idea. Law school will change you, and IMHO if you don't have some sense of self before you begin, it won't change you for the better.
It makes sense, but in the context of the discussion it could have been better clarified.
Macs haven't "just worked" for me very often. And that's before I even factor in their supremely weak window manager with even fewer features than micros~1 windows...
It's apparent to me here that the writer is talking about the WM for OS X, not the WM for Apple's X11.
If it bothers you, just run X-Windows on top with a window manager of your choice. OSX window manager functionality is a superset of what's available on Linux.
You reply by saying run X-Windows, and then note that "OSX window manager functionality is a superset of what's available on Linux." But does your reference to the wm functionality refer to the wm functionality of Apple's X11, or of OS X? Are you referring to the actual functionality of the wm itself or the functionality of the platform (choices of wm, etc)? Your last reply seems to state that you are referring to the wm functionality of Apple's X11, in that you have an additional choice of wm's so that you can pick the option you prefer.
Therefore, I stand by my original reply. It was a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statement, given the context of the conversation. But after your follow-up, your point is clearer.
I believe the correct term is "subset". Otherwise you would be stating that the OS X wm has more functionality.
:)
Yes, I have a tendency to needlessly nitpick. I'm a law student, I can't help it.
WARNING: Citing websites like consumerfreedom.com as legitimate sources to support your position (regardless of its actual merit) immediately results in an absolute loss of any credibility you may have once had.
They can file in any district where there is a suitable defendant. Personal jurisdiction is only concerned with whether the courts can get jurisdiction over the defendant, not the plaintiff.
I'm pretty sure (95%) that's right.
I generally agree with you, but when you're talking about the Constitution, I think that some flexibility is required. To say that it should only be interpreted the same as the founders intended it to be is assinine. It was written over 200 years ago, in a time and under conditions far different then today. Not allowing for any flexibility would make the Constitution itself irrelevant and invite a state of chaos as governmental entities were unable to respond to real problems and issues that result from changing circumstances. I suppose if you're a die hard libertarian who believes in no (or EXTREMELY limited) government, then that all sounds fine and dandy. For people with who still have all of their marbles, it would be unacceptable.
And stretching interpretation isn't may be reckless (that would be a value judgment, one I would disagree with), but it isn't a new precedent. It's been happening for 200 years.
If you drop a booster on my house, I'll sue you into the stone age.
Looking at my bank balance, that won't take very much.
At the least, you may want to consider letting Congress implement some sort of regulation that insures that any "spaceline" has sufficient capital or liability insurance to compensate you. Otherwise, your judgment against a bankrupt corporation will be quite the pyrrhic victory.
As grandparent poster said, sometimes a little regulation isn't such a bad thing. The problem lies in finding the right balance.
That's a pretty narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. While you may be correct that the ORIGINAL intent was to regulate competition amongst the states, the interpretation of the commerce clause has evolved substantially over the years, so the meaning of it TODAY, as in the only moment in time that is completely relevant, it means something much different.
Rock. On. Good work, grasshopper.
Didn't mean to come across as attacking. Just lookin' for a little bit o' clarity on the issue.
I am assuming that you mean "legislature" where you have stated "legislation".
And that you are either implying that either:
A) the bill has been introduced but is tied up in committee.
- or -
B) the bill has been passed but not yet signed into law or it is not yet being enforced for some reason.
As it would make no sense for it to be tied up in committee if it has already passed.