Both are information.
But I guess only some information is free. What is the point of a key by the way? To lock up content? Doesn't it want to be free? I don't know why you wouldn't tell me then.
What's your home address?
It's obvious that you haven't seen the movie. It is very explicit with regard to the lengths to which they go to get everything into the vault. It is clear from inspection that neither Clooney nor Damon brought them in. There was no room in the box. Come up with any way in which it happened. I'll wait.
So, they tell Andy Garca that they've taken the vault. They explain they'll either blow up his money, or take half of it. He agrees to let them take half. Casino staff comes down and gets bags, then loads them in a truck. What is in those bags? How did it get in the vault? The Swat Team had nothing to do with those bags, they pulled up as the van was leaving.
To recap, for the slow: Three people in vault (Damon, Clooney, Acrobat). Bags taken from vault BY CASINO STAFF SWAT team arrives afterwards. Bags are completely filled with something that could not have gotten into the vault. Any ideas here chief?
Besides, if you're gonna pick it apart, there's a much more fatal flaw. The plan doesn't work at all in the real world.
*Spoilers Below*
So, they tell the casino to take out bags of money, and give them bags, which are loaded in a truck. The truck is then driven to the airport, at which point it is discovered that the bags are filled with fliers from hookers. How did they get those bags filled with those down there? At this point, only the guy stuffed in the box, george clooney, and brad pitt are down there. The SWAT team comes afterwards. You think they could make a movie that works, yah?
Ummm, whats the opposite of yes?
Oh yah, no.
The argument is that since the GPL is invalid, these works were released into the public domain upon the allowing of their source to be distributed.
MS doesn't distribute their source, and so the situation is different.
How many novels have you read that you liked, and would purchase to read again if only you could remember what the title was, and all you know are a few choice quotes or unique scenes?
0, same as everyone else. You can't remember something as momentous as the title, but you remember choice quotes? This is fantasy land, and not close to the real reason for the service.
That's not to say the service doesn't have benefits; say I'm interested in all books that reference "idiots who post drivel on slashdot". This feature lets me find these books, without examining hundreds of possibilities.
I know this isn't going to be popular, but googlebar functionality is much better than Firebird (which I use). By this I don't mean overall (obviously not the case, else I wouldn't use it), but in every area the GB tries, it owns FB. Better popup blocking, one click button, and that great autofill feature. I wish we could get a native GB for FB.
Marx didn't offer an economic system. He "documented" an inescapable, historical process, that would inexorably lead to the rise of the proletariat and the institution of the "marxist" system.
There is a big difference. Consider, for instance, Wealth of Nations. This work documented an economic system, trying to explain how it works. Marx's view of history, through a scientific dialectic, made it the case in his mind that Marxism would INEVITABLY win out. He then detailed what the result of that would be.
Now, I'm not trying to say that Marx didn't support the Marxist proletarian outcome, but there is a very large fundamental difference here you are not grasping. Maybe you should take one of these serious courses?
Have you studied Marx?
He didn't put forward "Marxism" as a idea for an economic system, but as the inevitable result of the dialectic process of history. Oops.
Keep in mind that MSWord can also save to.pdf (using a third party solution, granted. However, it would be impossible to remove this functionality without removing print functionality AFAIK).
Alright, I'm sorry, I will assume all responsibility for not making my position clear. Here we go:
If this decision is in any way motivated by dislike for MS following from the antitrust suit in which MA was involved, these actions are WILDLY inappropriate. To wit, the decision makers (Kreiss and to whatever extent he was influenced by the his superior, the Governor), this is taking the responsibility for deciding such a case, and deciding the punishment for such a case, out of the hands of the judiciary. THUS, the system of checks and balances is being violated. IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE EXECUTIVE to provide extra-judicial punishment for offenses. In fact, it is a clear violation of the sep. of powers.
Thank the Lord in Heaven for your post. No one else on this thread has pointed that out.
Seriously though, your answer does not address my real point. I contend that the reason behind this "spec" is largely a grudge on the part of MA against MS. Further, I argue that it is not a necessary spec (for instance, army boots being waterproof), but a spec that only contributes to an overall decision (well, this army boot is a little heavier, but more durable). In the latter case, it would be improper for the government to specify, without a clear reason, a minimum weight for the boot (okay, these aren't the best applications of the analogy, but I think the point comes across). It's even worse if there's some idea the weight requirement might be instituted as part of an abuse of constitutional power on the one specifying it (if this idea isn't apparent to you, check out many other responses in this thread).
My Word program (Word 2000) will save a document in HTML, RTF, and.txt. Are any of those open?
So, in the unlikely scenario where MS stopped offering a viewer, would these be a possibility?
I think you're too much equating "closed standards" with unusuable standards, and have too much of a tin hat mentality.
Note that, at a fundamental level, I'm not disagreeing with you. Also, despite having a legal version of Office2k on my system, I use OpenOffice out of preference (largely because I'm a math major, and like to typeset with OO's formula editor. I'm too lazy to learn LaTeX just yet).
My point isn't ANYTHING against OSS. I'd be just as happy if everyone used it (I love getting all this free shit instead of paying out the nose). However, I have certain standards to which I hold my government, and I don't think MA is respecting those. You also have standards, which are similar and different, and think MA's decision is a step in the right direction. Okay, I've got no problem with that.
Good lord buddy. I guess I'll try to take these one at a time. You wrote a lot, so I'll try to paraphrase then answer. I promise I won't distort you (or, that any perceived distortions stem only from personal inadequacy).
1. The governor has some role in punishing anti-competitive practices
Agreed! And your excerpts pretty much show what that is. He should appoint judges. Unfortunately, your reference to article XI is WILDLY out of any context. This ONLY refers to defense appropriations by the governor. Maybe if you posted the fulltext it would have been enlightening? You also didn't post this little gem a
Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
Well, what have we here? Checks and balances? Hmmm, fancy that. I guess maybe it ISN'T the governors responsibility to act as the judiciary? Whoddathunkit?
2. Robber Barons WILL stand, unless the government intervenes (as opposed to my contention that history shows they will not stand).
Okay, I should have been clearer; yes, monopolies are inherently self-perpetuating. But why do you think the government passed the Sherman Anti-Trust act? (or the preceeding, less effective Anti-Trust acts?) They were passed as a responsible to the inevitable (imo) abuses that come from a monopoly power. My point was, I think it is impossible for a robber baron monopoly to exist, without eventually, FORCING government intervention. However, more saliently, having the governor of MA usurp the rights of state and federal judiciaries is probably WORSE than MS (which doesn't challenge the tenents of US democracy, or either the federal or state constitutions in question).
3. Eric Kreiss should be able to dictate his department's spending practices in any way he pleases.
Okay, I hope next he bans MA from purchasing anything made by those goddamn jews. After all, that's his perogative! Also, I hope he uses his public office to deal with personal agenda's and grudges, or at the very least, be the instrument of the governor's attempt to do the same. That's what your applauding here.
3. You don't think allowing him to do this (this being the ridiculousness discussed above) sets a dangerous precedent.
Well, okay, thats your perogative. I like to live in a country where the fundamentals of our constitution are broken for petty values, but as long as we're still allowed to make outrageous comparison s between Kreiss and Socrates, everything is peachy.
4. There is no way this sets a dangerous precedent, because it's simply the secretary's discretion
Hmmm, well I guess the pretext of immature grudge overrules the pretext of being bought out. Nonetheless, having a policy that subjugates the rights of the constituency for ulterior motives probably sets a dangerous precedent.
Okay, I'm done here. To paraphrase Wittgenstein, "People who use poor reasoning are slum lords, and it is my duty to put them out of business".
OSC wrote a short story that combined cloning and "brain taping" in a society that had outlawed capital punishment. Basically, you would be "killed", your brain would be taped until the last moment, and then you'd be "reloaded" in a cloned body.
He expanded this idea in a novel, The Worthing Saga in which brain taping existed, as well as a "sleep-drug", somec, which put you in a coma-like rest state, but wiped your memories. Upon awakening, memories would be reloaded. This drug was given as a reward to the rich and influential, and allowed to live, in a sense, through the centuries.
Both are interesting and worth reading. I don't know the story to which the parent refers.
Judging from your original post, "cost" to you is synonymous with "price tag." Hence my use of the words "cheaper" and "more expensive."
You obviously misjudged my original post, I reread it and can't find anything that might give you that opinion.
None of the above. I'm not one that feels that a price tag could (or should) be associated with free ("as in speech") access to government, and there is only one choice that is acceptable in a republican form of government.
Oh, for heavens sake. It would be worth 10 trillion dollars of government money to you so that no one has to download a free MS Word document viewer? How can I argue when you make an argument this ridiculous? At some level of expense, almost nothing is justified. Your example is clearly not one of the exceptions.
The problem is this: It is is no way the responsible of the executive branch of Mass. to punish anti-competitive behavior. This action, if taken in this sense, is not better than vigilanteism.
I hope history has shown that robber baron monopolies can't stand, and I hope it doesn't stand (I'm such an astroturfer, huh?), but I don't want Eric Kreiss as the judge, jury and executioner.
Further, allowing this sets a dangerous precedent. Everyone knows that Redmond has more lobbyists than OSS. Now that a move like this is kosher, what's to stop MS from convincing other state governments from mandating MS? Obviously, it might not occur in so many words, but what if they mandated "Commercially developed software, including full support, verification of IP contained within, etc. etc."
Wow, so insightful.
If you'd read the thread, the only major MS app I even use is Windows XP. Further, I said it would be great if OSS was adopted. I just think it would be even GREATER if it happened on a level playing field.
IHBT, I know. Nonetheless, just wanted to make sure no one took your statement as less than completely ridiculous.
Goodness sakes. How can you copy a piece of text without reading it? I suppose maybe the gulf lies in understanding.
Is your example an example of cost? Hmm, doesn't seem to be.
Maybe it's an example of benefit? Hold on, it sounds like you might be getting somewhere.
I wish I had mentioned benefits in my post, thank you for helping me out.
On a less jackass note, this gets EXACTLY back to a cost benefit analysis. Is this functionality you describe worth 10 million dollars? What about 10 billion? 10 trillion? Unless you're mad as a hatter, I'm guessing that at some point there you said, no, not worth that. Guess what you were doing? Hint: (My contention is that total cost v. total benefit should be the primary consideration.)
This is tired and wrong. Statements like these make the OSS community seem ridiculous. I'm sorry not to enumerate all the reasons this statement is silly, but if you scroll up a bit I think it'll help ya out.
Slashdot Mirror
Who get's to decide what information is public or private? Do we have a right to license private information?
Both are information. But I guess only some information is free. What is the point of a key by the way? To lock up content? Doesn't it want to be free? I don't know why you wouldn't tell me then. What's your home address?
What's your social security number?
It's not that easy. There is no way you can even come up with so that it works.
It's obvious that you haven't seen the movie. It is very explicit with regard to the lengths to which they go to get everything into the vault. It is clear from inspection that neither Clooney nor Damon brought them in. There was no room in the box. Come up with any way in which it happened. I'll wait.
You don't get it.
So, they tell Andy Garca that they've taken the vault. They explain they'll either blow up his money, or take half of it. He agrees to let them take half. Casino staff comes down and gets bags, then loads them in a truck. What is in those bags? How did it get in the vault? The Swat Team had nothing to do with those bags, they pulled up as the van was leaving.
To recap, for the slow:
Three people in vault (Damon, Clooney, Acrobat).
Bags taken from vault BY CASINO STAFF
SWAT team arrives afterwards.
Bags are completely filled with something that could not have gotten into the vault. Any ideas here chief?
Besides, if you're gonna pick it apart, there's a much more fatal flaw. The plan doesn't work at all in the real world. *Spoilers Below* So, they tell the casino to take out bags of money, and give them bags, which are loaded in a truck. The truck is then driven to the airport, at which point it is discovered that the bags are filled with fliers from hookers. How did they get those bags filled with those down there? At this point, only the guy stuffed in the box, george clooney, and brad pitt are down there. The SWAT team comes afterwards. You think they could make a movie that works, yah?
Ummm, whats the opposite of yes? Oh yah, no. The argument is that since the GPL is invalid, these works were released into the public domain upon the allowing of their source to be distributed. MS doesn't distribute their source, and so the situation is different.
How many novels have you read that you liked, and would purchase to read again if only you could remember what the title was, and all you know are a few choice quotes or unique scenes?
0, same as everyone else. You can't remember something as momentous as the title, but you remember choice quotes? This is fantasy land, and not close to the real reason for the service.
That's not to say the service doesn't have benefits; say I'm interested in all books that reference "idiots who post drivel on slashdot". This feature lets me find these books, without examining hundreds of possibilities.
I know this isn't going to be popular, but googlebar functionality is much better than Firebird (which I use). By this I don't mean overall (obviously not the case, else I wouldn't use it), but in every area the GB tries, it owns FB. Better popup blocking, one click button, and that great autofill feature. I wish we could get a native GB for FB.
Wow, good "insight". Do you think copyrights themselves don't cause the employment of people?
That's not what I said.
Marx didn't offer an economic system. He "documented" an inescapable, historical process, that would inexorably lead to the rise of the proletariat and the institution of the "marxist" system.
There is a big difference. Consider, for instance, Wealth of Nations. This work documented an economic system, trying to explain how it works. Marx's view of history, through a scientific dialectic, made it the case in his mind that Marxism would INEVITABLY win out. He then detailed what the result of that would be.
Now, I'm not trying to say that Marx didn't support the Marxist proletarian outcome, but there is a very large fundamental difference here you are not grasping. Maybe you should take one of these serious courses?
Have you studied Marx? He didn't put forward "Marxism" as a idea for an economic system, but as the inevitable result of the dialectic process of history. Oops.
Keep in mind that MSWord can also save to .pdf (using a third party solution, granted. However, it would be impossible to remove this functionality without removing print functionality AFAIK).
Also, HTML is an option.
Alright, I'm sorry, I will assume all responsibility for not making my position clear. Here we go:
If this decision is in any way motivated by dislike for MS following from the antitrust suit in which MA was involved, these actions are WILDLY inappropriate. To wit, the decision makers (Kreiss and to whatever extent he was influenced by the his superior, the Governor), this is taking the responsibility for deciding such a case, and deciding the punishment for such a case, out of the hands of the judiciary. THUS, the system of checks and balances is being violated. IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE EXECUTIVE to provide extra-judicial punishment for offenses. In fact, it is a clear violation of the sep. of powers.
Seriously though, your answer does not address my real point. I contend that the reason behind this "spec" is largely a grudge on the part of MA against MS. Further, I argue that it is not a necessary spec (for instance, army boots being waterproof), but a spec that only contributes to an overall decision (well, this army boot is a little heavier, but more durable). In the latter case, it would be improper for the government to specify, without a clear reason, a minimum weight for the boot (okay, these aren't the best applications of the analogy, but I think the point comes across). It's even worse if there's some idea the weight requirement might be instituted as part of an abuse of constitutional power on the one specifying it (if this idea isn't apparent to you, check out many other responses in this thread).
Well, to just finish up with your analogy:
.txt. Are any of those open?
My Word program (Word 2000) will save a document in HTML, RTF, and
So, in the unlikely scenario where MS stopped offering a viewer, would these be a possibility?
I think you're too much equating "closed standards" with unusuable standards, and have too much of a tin hat mentality.
Note that, at a fundamental level, I'm not disagreeing with you. Also, despite having a legal version of Office2k on my system, I use OpenOffice out of preference (largely because I'm a math major, and like to typeset with OO's formula editor. I'm too lazy to learn LaTeX just yet).
My point isn't ANYTHING against OSS. I'd be just as happy if everyone used it (I love getting all this free shit instead of paying out the nose). However, I have certain standards to which I hold my government, and I don't think MA is respecting those. You also have standards, which are similar and different, and think MA's decision is a step in the right direction. Okay, I've got no problem with that.
1. The governor has some role in punishing anti-competitive practices
Agreed! And your excerpts pretty much show what that is. He should appoint judges. Unfortunately, your reference to article XI is WILDLY out of any context. This ONLY refers to defense appropriations by the governor. Maybe if you posted the fulltext it would have been enlightening? You also didn't post this little gem a
Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
Well, what have we here? Checks and balances? Hmmm, fancy that. I guess maybe it ISN'T the governors responsibility to act as the judiciary? Whoddathunkit?
2. Robber Barons WILL stand, unless the government intervenes (as opposed to my contention that history shows they will not stand).
Okay, I should have been clearer; yes, monopolies are inherently self-perpetuating. But why do you think the government passed the Sherman Anti-Trust act? (or the preceeding, less effective Anti-Trust acts?) They were passed as a responsible to the inevitable (imo) abuses that come from a monopoly power. My point was, I think it is impossible for a robber baron monopoly to exist, without eventually, FORCING government intervention. However, more saliently, having the governor of MA usurp the rights of state and federal judiciaries is probably WORSE than MS (which doesn't challenge the tenents of US democracy, or either the federal or state constitutions in question).
3. Eric Kreiss should be able to dictate his department's spending practices in any way he pleases.
Okay, I hope next he bans MA from purchasing anything made by those goddamn jews. After all, that's his perogative! Also, I hope he uses his public office to deal with personal agenda's and grudges, or at the very least, be the instrument of the governor's attempt to do the same. That's what your applauding here.
3. You don't think allowing him to do this (this being the ridiculousness discussed above) sets a dangerous precedent.
Well, okay, thats your perogative. I like to live in a country where the fundamentals of our constitution are broken for petty values, but as long as we're still allowed to make outrageous comparison s between Kreiss and Socrates, everything is peachy.
4. There is no way this sets a dangerous precedent, because it's simply the secretary's discretion
Hmmm, well I guess the pretext of immature grudge overrules the pretext of being bought out. Nonetheless, having a policy that subjugates the rights of the constituency for ulterior motives probably sets a dangerous precedent.
Okay, I'm done here. To paraphrase Wittgenstein, "People who use poor reasoning are slum lords, and it is my duty to put them out of business".
OSC wrote a short story that combined cloning and "brain taping" in a society that had outlawed capital punishment. Basically, you would be "killed", your brain would be taped until the last moment, and then you'd be "reloaded" in a cloned body.
He expanded this idea in a novel, The Worthing Saga in which brain taping existed, as well as a "sleep-drug", somec, which put you in a coma-like rest state, but wiped your memories. Upon awakening, memories would be reloaded. This drug was given as a reward to the rich and influential, and allowed to live, in a sense, through the centuries.
Both are interesting and worth reading. I don't know the story to which the parent refers.
I think it's pretty well written and interesting, but YMMV.
Judging from your original post, "cost" to you is synonymous with "price tag." Hence my use of the words "cheaper" and "more expensive."
You obviously misjudged my original post, I reread it and can't find anything that might give you that opinion.
None of the above. I'm not one that feels that a price tag could (or should) be associated with free ("as in speech") access to government, and there is only one choice that is acceptable in a republican form of government.
Oh, for heavens sake. It would be worth 10 trillion dollars of government money to you so that no one has to download a free MS Word document viewer? How can I argue when you make an argument this ridiculous? At some level of expense, almost nothing is justified. Your example is clearly not one of the exceptions.
Great post, I agree with almost everything.
The problem is this: It is is no way the responsible of the executive branch of Mass. to punish anti-competitive behavior. This action, if taken in this sense, is not better than vigilanteism.
I hope history has shown that robber baron monopolies can't stand, and I hope it doesn't stand (I'm such an astroturfer, huh?), but I don't want Eric Kreiss as the judge, jury and executioner.
Further, allowing this sets a dangerous precedent. Everyone knows that Redmond has more lobbyists than OSS. Now that a move like this is kosher, what's to stop MS from convincing other state governments from mandating MS? Obviously, it might not occur in so many words, but what if they mandated "Commercially developed software, including full support, verification of IP contained within, etc. etc."
Wow, so insightful. If you'd read the thread, the only major MS app I even use is Windows XP. Further, I said it would be great if OSS was adopted. I just think it would be even GREATER if it happened on a level playing field. IHBT, I know. Nonetheless, just wanted to make sure no one took your statement as less than completely ridiculous.
Goodness sakes. How can you copy a piece of text without reading it? I suppose maybe the gulf lies in understanding.
Is your example an example of cost? Hmm, doesn't seem to be.
Maybe it's an example of benefit? Hold on, it sounds like you might be getting somewhere.
I wish I had mentioned benefits in my post, thank you for helping me out.
On a less jackass note, this gets EXACTLY back to a cost benefit analysis. Is this functionality you describe worth 10 million dollars? What about 10 billion? 10 trillion? Unless you're mad as a hatter, I'm guessing that at some point there you said, no, not worth that. Guess what you were doing? Hint: (My contention is that total cost v. total benefit should be the primary consideration.)
This is tired and wrong. Statements like these make the OSS community seem ridiculous. I'm sorry not to enumerate all the reasons this statement is silly, but if you scroll up a bit I think it'll help ya out.