"Give me control of the plane or I'll burn you with this lighter
Add a can of hair-spray or other flammable aerosol to this equation....presto a flame-thrower. I am sure there are other 101 uses for your lighter in the Usama's Terrorist Handbook.
#6. Handcuff the passengers to their seats. In case they would want anything the stewardesses are there to help. It would be a little price to pay for feeling and being secure.
Of course. Along these lines: #7. Strip all passengers naked before putting them in the shackles. What is a little privacy in the face of terrorism?
#8. To avoid using the rectal and vaginal cavities being used for smuggling weapons aboards, each chair is equipped with deep-penetrating dildoes....
Terrorists have many and complex motiviations, not "sole intentions". I think you'll find they have laundry lists of stuff they want to change after their current issue is resolved
While true, you forgot about the critical factor in this equasion: the support and recruitment base. If the idea is something that every man, woman and child in his homeland feels is "right" and "just" and worth dying for to free them from opression or avenge injustices, the recruitment base is vast and support for the terrorist immense. Unfotunately, this is the case in most Arab countries and it is for the most part Israel's and US's own doing. If the idea is some abstract religious mumbo-jumbo which few consider part of daily life, the terrorist will end up a lone nut with no backing and more likely to be caught by an Arab cop down the street then a Homeland Security Officer in New York.
And that is why foreign policy is the focal point of the whole battle. Remove the grass-roots support and the terrorists become reduced to the ranks of rare and for the most part truly incompetent (for being delusional) nutcases. And to boot they will no longer have resources to wreak havoc abroad and thus will beocome a local issue, further turning their own public against them.
I am soooo sick of the "Hate America 1st" 'ers posting their ignorance
Osama lived in a country where you were punished for playing chess and ancient statues were purposefully destroyed
So you are saying, Taliban sent their soldiers on the mission with Usama's own nutcases? Saudi Arabia's mullahs sent the Crown Prince's F16's to help? Yes they are all religious nuts but all their wars are local. Usama would still rant and rave against "infidels" in some obscure mosque somewhere in some village in Saudi Arabia to a bored crowd of an old man and a donkey if it were not for Israel's rampages and US's cheerful support of them and its equally enthusiastic attempts at owning the entire Middle East. By force should the commerce and corruption fail.
Convert everyone in America to Islam, drop the Constitution and separation of church and state, impose Sharia (Islamic) law, stop all gambling, drug use, alcohol, pornography, and prostitution, adultery, fornication, homosexuality under pain of appropriate Islamic penalty (usually death), stop preventing genocide against the Jews, stop charging interest on bank loans, etc
I am no lover of Usama, but this is some creative quoting. He rants and raves about the fact that the US attacked his nation (which he considers to be all Muslims) but his religious ravings about "converting" the west are only a small part (and I suspect considered to be least likely to be achieved) of the whole. Israel and "get the fuck outa here" features in his rant many times in many ways including the "religious" part. He like any religious fanatic seeks to reconcile his war against real opressors and thieves nearby with his religious dogma and thus in his mind all the pieces "fall together" in one grand solution: convert everyone to Islam. I think even he recognizes that as a pipe dream of his and in practical terms seeks only the immediate remedies. Terrorizing the US for its way of life alone is extremely unlikely, what has happened is that he thinks that way of life is somehow related to the tragedies Arabs have endured for the last few centuries. He might be right in some places (Israel, strange poliferation of Zionists among the ruling elites and media, oil-related oppression and warfare, etc) but if the effects go away, the "Islamization" would become more of a propaganda then terror war. "Allah's Satellite Channel featuring Usama's Late Show and Prayer Club" would be more likely then a bunch of terror squads. Why? Because then he would be the agressor and even he would recognize that as a loosing proposition in "converting" someone.
The world is filled with jealous malcontents, and we are always going to be their target. The good news is that we designed the computer they use to connect to the Internet we created to coordinate the working on the banner that they print using the inkjets that we sell
No. You will be always a target for this sort of attitude. For the record: the computers were designed and manufactured in Taiwan, Singapore and China. Ditto for the printers. The concept of a computer itself was invented by dudes like Babage and Turing (both British). Packet switching networks, which Internet is an example of, were invented in Britain. What you just demonstrated is a way of thinking that leads to supremacism, so lovingly exhibited by major swaths of US citizenry, a primary and most important ingedient in creating every evil empire that the human race has ever had misfortune to witness. The second ingredient is fear and paranoia about imaginary foreign super-villains leading to suspension of civil liberties. Buckle your seatbealt because the ride is already well in progress it seems.
Maybe one empire resembles another because of the nature of being an empire.
And that, Sir, is the core of the problem. An attempt to create an empire, is always rooted in lust for power, wealth and ultimately, inevietably leads to hubris and supremacist mentality. Supremacist mentality in turn leads to wars waged on the "inferior" cultures to "civilize" them and bring to them cherished values like McDonalds, Pepsi and Nike along with dog-eat-dog "free" market and virtual slavery and permanent impoverishment of 80% of the population. But they will just roll over and obey, while in trance-like mesmerised state with 500 channels of satellite tv flickering in their widely opened and unseeing eyes. Right.
I think its time for an overdue lesson, learned long ago by the Greek, Roman, Mongolian, Chinese, Spanish, Turkish, British, French, German, Soviet empires: you can fool some of the people some of the time, but sooner or later enough of them will catch on and rip you a new one. So long Pax Americana, and thanks for all the fish.
The path to world peace is lots of MTV, McDonalds, and Microsoft. LOL.
You got your path to peace confused with a path to bloody anti-corporate revolts/terror attacks. Replacing one arrogant supermacist group with another is not the way to go. At the end of the day if you are a slave to some US-propped king or a mega-corp matters little.
The path to peace is not only increasing the standard of living in there but making those people feel like they are worth something. That means respect. That means some dickheads do not propose buying off those "ignorant, inferior brown muslim people" (who you talk to FBI about just in case) in order to maintain standard of living for the "enlightened, civilized, gentle and peace loving" denizens of Israel or USA.
Oh, and as far as IRA is concerned, you neglected to mention the shit that the British dumped on the Irish-minded inhabitants of Norther Ireland (which was conquered by force by the British Empire). Picking one villain here out of two equally bloody groups because one side happens to resemble your pet hate group more then the other, tells volumes about your way of thinking.
And what were the US troops doing in Lebanon per-chance? Maybe protecting the murderous, arrogant, beligerent root cause of all the arab hate against the West, a country that turned well-off Lebanon into ruin, which presided over rivers of blood spilled in there on its behalf, the favourite "only democracy" in Middle East, probably the most reviled country in the history of the planet, Israel? Not that its neighbours are saints, but US took sides and from that moment on, that is all that matters.
The road to reducing terror will be looong and hard and will not be fought with armies . It will be fought with sharing of the wealth of the human race but far more importantly it will be fought against people who cannot understand the causes of terror and lump together a partisan who cobbles together rickety bombs to hurl at the racist/supermacist foe who now lives in the fighter's annexed ancient ancestral house and an idiot who does it because someone conned him to do so for some illegitimate, looney cause. Unfortunately at this point in time USA and Israel are the bloodthirsty, crazed loons which make even a wacko like al-Sadr look like a patriotic freedom fighter. That is not the way to win the "war on terror"
Sir I do salute you for putting it so concisely and eloquently.
Rarely do I see here on Slashdot words of true wisdom, among these indignant expressions of exorbitant greed masquerading as phillosphy or politics.
May I make this rather sad (or maybe amusing) observation about most believers in trickle-down economics, economic libertarianism, neo-conservatism and similiar lunacies here:
What comes to my mind is all those Nigerian "419" advance-fee scammers. The whole premise is to use the victims greed as a weapon to lure him/her into giving up something valuable in exchange for nothing. The trick wouldnt be possible if the victim were not blinded with greed. This is exactly the same method by which the kings keep the serfs working so furiously. The masters offer the slaves what appears to be a way to join the ranks of the divine, if only the slave were to put her shoulder harder to the grind.... if only were he to spend less time with his family and more at work... if only were he more "flexible"... more "competetive"... just a little more.. and maybe if you work "hard" enough, you too can live on a yacht in Bahamas...
And so says the fox to the chicken: "Oh, are you getting discouraged? No problem, here, another tabloid with a mega-star for you to worship. Now wouldnt it be great to be like him? Hard work, boy! That's how you get there! Now go finish that project on an arbitrary, impossible, deadline so I can get my well deserved millions in bonuses. And if there is a really big, and I mean REALLY big problem, you can call the bar at the golfcourse, they will flag me down when I am on the 9th hole."
And while the fools toil, the thieves laugh all the way to the bank.
Please, enlighten us with a link to your hardware vendor.
I would but the prison authorities refuse to let him run a website. Poor, unlucky guy. He said that something did "break" and then he hit the "enter" key... I still dont understand how that can land you in jail. A case of malicious prosecution if I ever saw one.
The idea that nobody that IS wealthy DESERVES to be wealthy is one of the primary motivations for socialism (if nobody DESERVES to be wealthy, then nobody SHOULD be wealthy).
Not at all. It is a question of degrees on the scale. On one hand you have the capitalism-as-religion whereby everyone is somehow deserving of their wealth (if not from skill or dedication then becasue God willed so) and on the other extreme, communists who believe that noone is deserving to be ahead of anyone else. I fall into the mid-range of the scale, I believe that there are indeed many people who are deserving, but equal or maybe even greater number does not. I base it on my personal empirical experience with wealthy people who for the most part are ignorant, far lazier then those who work for them and on top of that if it were not for those employees they would have indeed blown off all their fortune on some idiotic snake-oil-get-richer-yet-quick scheme. It is their social position at the start of their lives that grants them the ability to stay on top. Contracts their parents made, deals that noone can get anymore etc.
Are there new eager, dedicated people becoming wealthy? Of course. Problem is, out of 1000 similarly dedicated and skilled, one will get anywhere. Just like those turtles out in the tropics racing to water's edge through the gauntlet of seagulls, skill and more importantly dedication matters far less then the ghust of wind that made the segull miss the one next to you.
Your problem is that you seek a black/white, foolproof, absolute solutions to problems that have none.
Religions are meant to address these unfair ways of life and as I already said, some find capitalism, the religion of choice. Unfortunately for them, it is a mere (albeit wisely designed) socio-economical theory meant to move the society forward despite of all the nonsense that people are prone to. In capitalism, it does not matter that fools are rich, because sooner or later, they are parted from their money. The process takes a loong time, longer the wealthier they are, but it happens. Unfortunately that works only in an actual capitalist society whereby one of its fundamental forces: competition is penalizing fools and rewarding the clever. In this perversion we have today, competition is no longer a powerful force. Mega-corps have moved from competition in the market place into law making and war-mongering. Adam Smith in his design knew that extensive concentration of wealth will ruin the system so that is why he kept insisting on "free markets" devoid of ways where one can achieve position that is protected by things other then one's ability to compete.
Note that despite of this, capitalism does not apply to all aspects of life, for example some argue that things like basic medical services, education are beyond the scope. As well as things that are not capable of being "private property" (another tennent of the system) like, for example information.
but continue to use it in the same basic manner that made their parents wealth. How many can you name that came to wealth completely by blind luck?
Inheretance is the very definition of blind luck, unless you believe that virtuous lign up in a different queue to be born in the right circumstances. You are offering as proof of their cleverness the facts that such people can afford for others to manage their fortunes while they party and they are not utter and complete morons that can blow 100 milions on tips at a strip bar. So in your way of thinking, I would be right only if every single rich kid, turned out to have an IQ lesser then their shoe size and proceeded to buy 1000 pink RollsRoyces at the minute he turns 18? All he has to do is not spend more then the trust funds and companies his father set-up, which are run by professionals, generate. Many, who are in such exquisite circumstances are worshipped by star-sruck people (you probably can count yourself in there) and are indeed coached to
hypocrite, \Hyp"o*crite\
[n] a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold
Hmm, as someone for example who demands for others to reveal their identity while he himself is hiding behind an alias. Was it not you who demanded that I give you my name and address and then (surprise here) it turned out that you are hiding behind your Slashdot alias. While dispensing labels like "coward" to others. Just like any arrogant, self-richeous, right-wing buffoon, would.
What you're doing is getting more force out of the same amount of fuel.
Ok, so I am getting more "playtime" out of the games on the PS/2, perheaps the modchip is only able to crack 1 out of 10. Most of them are sold by the same company just like the oil I buy is distributed by, say, Exxon.
You are forgetting that despite of the amount of work that goes into the production (or pumping out) of the stuff in both cases I am "cheating". In the case of gas, I get more than the oil company would wish me to get and in case of the game I am getting more then the game distributor wanted me to get. In case of oil, some poor Iraqi is probably gonna go hungry (if noone else buys the extra 15% of oil) or in case of the game some developer who worked his ass of is going to not get paid. Same thing.
The problem is that people expect to make me a slave to their various throw-away consumables (gas, electricity, satellite tv, games) and then get all pissed off if I find a way to save gas, generate solar power, decode signals or mod consoles. Except that the gas companies being the "old" school of business havent figured out how to stop me.... yet.
Another problem with the analogy is the fact that tinkering with your car doesn't give you free gas!
You bet your ass it does! If I install my new fuel-injection-cleaner-and-fuel-saver-o-matic-gizm o I will save 15% on fuel. Ergo 15% of the gas for which I had to pay before is now free to me! Whoopie!
Spoken like a true, courageous, having nothing to lose Slashdotter with his home address, phone number and mugshot in his Slashdot journal... oh, wait!
Oh yes, and I pull wings off of flies in my spare time. That is if I get any spare time when I am not imposing my will on others here on Slashdot with my mighty keyboard. In case you haven't noticed I do reply to you in these ways because it is you who is abrasive, arrogant and display my-way-or-the-high-way attitude without actually bothering to prove your points. Oh, and look up the definition of "sociopath" one of these days. It would help a bit if you were to insult people with words you actually understood.
Thats true. However you failed to note that Germany of the 30's was in fact a free market economy, and it did suffer the effects of the Great Depression, that is one of the reasons Hitler came to power. The capitalists at the time backed him up. And while its true that Germany ceased to be a free market economy shortly afterwards, the people who were at the helm of the change were the top capitalists of the country. History bites and you just seem to selectively ignore its lessons.
Wealth and Power generally are concentrated around those that are motivated and show leadership abilities...number of people will always be more motivated...jealousy... not motivated
While it is true that political power is likely to be concentrated (temporarilly pending re-election) around some individuals, excessive concentration of wealth is not good for anyone. This is probably hopelessly lost on you, since you seem to be a victim of the modern twist on the "capitalism-as-religion" education. Christians believe that virtuous will go to heaven, you do believe that motivated will become super-wealthy. Sinners to hell, lazy to poverty etc. I have news for you, while there is colleration between skill and motivation and wealth in some instances, heredity, social standing at birth but more importantly blind luck have far more to do with it then anything else. The fact that you do not grasp this shows that you do live in some sort of fantasy world which has little to do with how this planet operates.
Capitalism as I repeated many times, is the the theory that developed (in 19th century) as an alternative to other socio-economic theories such as the one by Marx. It can only be analysed in that context. It was meant as a means to move society forward while acknowledging (unlike Marx) that most people will remain ignorant, greedy and selfish. It was to be self-balancing in design whereby the concentration of wealth is counter-balanced by ruthless but fair competition. In capitalism (contrary to its name) not a capitalist but a consumer is the king. At least that is how Adam Smith had planned it.
Like communism however, some people thought it was a great idea to use this system with some "modifications" to make sure they came permanently on top. Just like Marx have never intended for the USSR to come to being, Adam Smith would be aghast at the modern pan-national corporation because its power has sooo long ago removed the checks and balances he so painstakingly inserted into his system.
I am growing real tired of explaining the purpose of this delicate clock full of exquisite gears that Adam Smith has created to those who are brandishing it around as a hammer to drive nails into walls and claim that it is they who truly understand. I am just jeallous of their new hammer, thats all.
B+A is stronger than A. Absolutely. Not more free, but just plain stronger!
Uhm... well no. 1+0.5 is indeed > 1. But I mentioned that A was replaced. Is it 0.5? 0.1 now? What? Is the sum still greater then 1? So is the strength of the new combined restriction greater? Since it is not an easy to calculate numeric value, it becomes only your opinion that it is. Some disagree. Hence the whole problem.
And that is precisely what I meant and that is the only thing that I meant, I the general terms about any license (thats why I replied in... wait for it...general terms without mentioning any such licenses by name).
Let me spell it out again: what you consider "freedom" somebody else considers a "restriction" because your "freedom" gets in the way of his convictions and thus prevents him from doing as he pleases. And for thar reason I listed 3 different ways people can feel about this issue, all valid from their individual perspectives
Yet here you are, demanding that I bow down to your, true, one and only embodiment of universal freedom, the ultimate, last word there ever will be on the subject, the BSD license. Which incidently I did not mention for I had no inkling that someone can be so fixated on it.
Now does restriction A removes more freedom than restriction B, is certainly debatable in most of the cases. But does restriction A removes more freedom than restriction A + restriction B, only a fool - or a devil's advocate loving hard pleas - will try to defend that.
For the sake of simplicity and my headache I will use your own definition here.
The case at hand is that Restriction B is being introduced into the license that replaces Restriction A. That is an explicit restriction on some ways of distributing the software replaces an implicit restriction on the types (and presumably numbers) of developers that will contribute with another set of developers. Is the B + the "improved" A stronger then A alone?
Its all arbitrary hased on one's pre-existing convictions. Which is all that I was trying to say here from the get go. One man's "freedom" is another's slavery.
They are not compelled to contribute back changes to the community unless they intend on distributing the product outside of their organization.
Again you are listing your perception of choice i.e. your definiton of "freedom".
Conversly I could say that a developer outside those companies has no incentive to contribute to something whereby he will likely end up paying for his own code when version 1.5 of the project is open in public domain and corporate-sponsored version 1.5b, closed only is the only one working with the company's hardware.
You assumed that freedom for the companies to do as they please, automatically translates to freedom for all.
You were whinging about how awful it is that BSD licensed code can be used in ways which would be prevented by the GPL and casting such use in a bad light using the emotionally charged and inaccurate word "misappropriate" to somehow imply that using BSD licensed code in exactly the manner in which it is licensed is somehow wrong.
You've lost it. What are you talking about? Explain where did I mention BSD in my original post?! To make it easier for you: here it is (I did resist the temptation to use big letters to aid someone's slow comprehension):
Freedom to not worry that someone will misapropriate your and the community's hard work for his/her profit while giving nothing back?
Where is BSD mentioned there? Public Domain? Apache License? X11? What? Or perheaps I was speaking about a developer who feels that contributing under any of those is not something he would do as it is against his convictions, ergo an alternative offers him a choice = freedom.
There is something particularly annoying about BSD zealots who spoil for a fight looking for pretexts in places they were not even fscking mentioned!
1. The state of being free; exemption from the power and control of another; liberty; independence. Made captive, yet deserving freedom more. - Milton. 2. Privileges; franchises; immunities. Your charter and your caty's freedom. - Shak. 3. Exemption from necessity, in choise and action; as, the freedom of the will.
As you can see this is quite an arbitrary concept and can mean a priviledge or an exemption from control. That is why I (for the purpose of this discussion) defined what kind of freedom (or from what power or influence specifically) I mean. What you and many others are grasping here for is some sort of fundamental "freedom" with which my concept of "freedom" is at odds with. As I explained elsewhere on this thread, there is no such thing as universal "freedom" that everyone can agree upon, save for some very obvious cases (say freedom from enslavement).
I will repeat: there are only specific freedoms from specific kinds of control and influences which people find unequally important based on their background. Thus GPL folks find freedom from the negative influence of their work being taken and used for profit more important then freedom from additional conditions and licensing terms. Is the GPL more free then BSD? It depends on what power or control, or what priviledge do you mean!
I asked how it was possible to misappropriate BSD licensed code
Sigh...
From the BSD license:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Here are three ways in which I could misapropriate BSD code: Distribute source or binary without the notice and endorse my shit with BSD developer's name.
Slashdot Mirror
Add a can of hair-spray or other flammable aerosol to this equation....presto a flame-thrower. I am sure there are other 101 uses for your lighter in the Usama's Terrorist Handbook.
Of course. Along these lines: #7. Strip all passengers naked before putting them in the shackles. What is a little privacy in the face of terrorism?
#8. To avoid using the rectal and vaginal cavities being used for smuggling weapons aboards, each chair is equipped with deep-penetrating dildoes....
While true, you forgot about the critical factor in this equasion: the support and recruitment base. If the idea is something that every man, woman and child in his homeland feels is "right" and "just" and worth dying for to free them from opression or avenge injustices, the recruitment base is vast and support for the terrorist immense. Unfotunately, this is the case in most Arab countries and it is for the most part Israel's and US's own doing. If the idea is some abstract religious mumbo-jumbo which few consider part of daily life, the terrorist will end up a lone nut with no backing and more likely to be caught by an Arab cop down the street then a Homeland Security Officer in New York.
And that is why foreign policy is the focal point of the whole battle. Remove the grass-roots support and the terrorists become reduced to the ranks of rare and for the most part truly incompetent (for being delusional) nutcases. And to boot they will no longer have resources to wreak havoc abroad and thus will beocome a local issue, further turning their own public against them.
Osama lived in a country where you were punished for playing chess and ancient statues were purposefully destroyed
So you are saying, Taliban sent their soldiers on the mission with Usama's own nutcases? Saudi Arabia's mullahs sent the Crown Prince's F16's to help? Yes they are all religious nuts but all their wars are local. Usama would still rant and rave against "infidels" in some obscure mosque somewhere in some village in Saudi Arabia to a bored crowd of an old man and a donkey if it were not for Israel's rampages and US's cheerful support of them and its equally enthusiastic attempts at owning the entire Middle East. By force should the commerce and corruption fail.
I am no lover of Usama, but this is some creative quoting. He rants and raves about the fact that the US attacked his nation (which he considers to be all Muslims) but his religious ravings about "converting" the west are only a small part (and I suspect considered to be least likely to be achieved) of the whole. Israel and "get the fuck outa here" features in his rant many times in many ways including the "religious" part. He like any religious fanatic seeks to reconcile his war against real opressors and thieves nearby with his religious dogma and thus in his mind all the pieces "fall together" in one grand solution: convert everyone to Islam. I think even he recognizes that as a pipe dream of his and in practical terms seeks only the immediate remedies. Terrorizing the US for its way of life alone is extremely unlikely, what has happened is that he thinks that way of life is somehow related to the tragedies Arabs have endured for the last few centuries. He might be right in some places (Israel, strange poliferation of Zionists among the ruling elites and media, oil-related oppression and warfare, etc) but if the effects go away, the "Islamization" would become more of a propaganda then terror war. "Allah's Satellite Channel featuring Usama's Late Show and Prayer Club" would be more likely then a bunch of terror squads. Why? Because then he would be the agressor and even he would recognize that as a loosing proposition in "converting" someone.
No. You will be always a target for this sort of attitude. For the record: the computers were designed and manufactured in Taiwan, Singapore and China. Ditto for the printers. The concept of a computer itself was invented by dudes like Babage and Turing (both British). Packet switching networks, which Internet is an example of, were invented in Britain. What you just demonstrated is a way of thinking that leads to supremacism, so lovingly exhibited by major swaths of US citizenry, a primary and most important ingedient in creating every evil empire that the human race has ever had misfortune to witness. The second ingredient is fear and paranoia about imaginary foreign super-villains leading to suspension of civil liberties. Buckle your seatbealt because the ride is already well in progress it seems.
And that, Sir, is the core of the problem. An attempt to create an empire, is always rooted in lust for power, wealth and ultimately, inevietably leads to hubris and supremacist mentality. Supremacist mentality in turn leads to wars waged on the "inferior" cultures to "civilize" them and bring to them cherished values like McDonalds, Pepsi and Nike along with dog-eat-dog "free" market and virtual slavery and permanent impoverishment of 80% of the population. But they will just roll over and obey, while in trance-like mesmerised state with 500 channels of satellite tv flickering in their widely opened and unseeing eyes. Right.
I think its time for an overdue lesson, learned long ago by the Greek, Roman, Mongolian, Chinese, Spanish, Turkish, British, French, German, Soviet empires: you can fool some of the people some of the time, but sooner or later enough of them will catch on and rip you a new one. So long Pax Americana, and thanks for all the fish.
You got your path to peace confused with a path to bloody anti-corporate revolts/terror attacks. Replacing one arrogant supermacist group with another is not the way to go. At the end of the day if you are a slave to some US-propped king or a mega-corp matters little.
The path to peace is not only increasing the standard of living in there but making those people feel like they are worth something. That means respect. That means some dickheads do not propose buying off those "ignorant, inferior brown muslim people" (who you talk to FBI about just in case) in order to maintain standard of living for the "enlightened, civilized, gentle and peace loving" denizens of Israel or USA.
Oh, and as far as IRA is concerned, you neglected to mention the shit that the British dumped on the Irish-minded inhabitants of Norther Ireland (which was conquered by force by the British Empire). Picking one villain here out of two equally bloody groups because one side happens to resemble your pet hate group more then the other, tells volumes about your way of thinking.
And what were the US troops doing in Lebanon per-chance? Maybe protecting the murderous, arrogant, beligerent root cause of all the arab hate against the West, a country that turned well-off Lebanon into ruin, which presided over rivers of blood spilled in there on its behalf, the favourite "only democracy" in Middle East, probably the most reviled country in the history of the planet, Israel? Not that its neighbours are saints, but US took sides and from that moment on, that is all that matters.
The road to reducing terror will be looong and hard and will not be fought with armies . It will be fought with sharing of the wealth of the human race but far more importantly it will be fought against people who cannot understand the causes of terror and lump together a partisan who cobbles together rickety bombs to hurl at the racist/supermacist foe who now lives in the fighter's annexed ancient ancestral house and an idiot who does it because someone conned him to do so for some illegitimate, looney cause. Unfortunately at this point in time USA and Israel are the bloodthirsty, crazed loons which make even a wacko like al-Sadr look like a patriotic freedom fighter. That is not the way to win the "war on terror"
Rarely do I see here on Slashdot words of true wisdom, among these indignant expressions of exorbitant greed masquerading as phillosphy or politics.
May I make this rather sad (or maybe amusing) observation about most believers in trickle-down economics, economic libertarianism, neo-conservatism and similiar lunacies here:
What comes to my mind is all those Nigerian "419" advance-fee scammers. The whole premise is to use the victims greed as a weapon to lure him/her into giving up something valuable in exchange for nothing. The trick wouldnt be possible if the victim were not blinded with greed. This is exactly the same method by which the kings keep the serfs working so furiously. The masters offer the slaves what appears to be a way to join the ranks of the divine, if only the slave were to put her shoulder harder to the grind .... if only were he to spend less time with his family and more at work ... if only were he more "flexible" ... more "competetive"... just a little more .. and maybe if you work "hard" enough, you too can live on a yacht in Bahamas...
And so says the fox to the chicken: "Oh, are you getting discouraged? No problem, here, another tabloid with a mega-star for you to worship. Now wouldnt it be great to be like him? Hard work, boy! That's how you get there! Now go finish that project on an arbitrary, impossible, deadline so I can get my well deserved millions in bonuses. And if there is a really big, and I mean REALLY big problem, you can call the bar at the golfcourse, they will flag me down when I am on the 9th hole."
And while the fools toil, the thieves laugh all the way to the bank.
I would but the prison authorities refuse to let him run a website. Poor, unlucky guy. He said that something did "break" and then he hit the "enter" key... I still dont understand how that can land you in jail. A case of malicious prosecution if I ever saw one.
Not at all. It is a question of degrees on the scale. On one hand you have the capitalism-as-religion whereby everyone is somehow deserving of their wealth (if not from skill or dedication then becasue God willed so) and on the other extreme, communists who believe that noone is deserving to be ahead of anyone else. I fall into the mid-range of the scale, I believe that there are indeed many people who are deserving, but equal or maybe even greater number does not. I base it on my personal empirical experience with wealthy people who for the most part are ignorant, far lazier then those who work for them and on top of that if it were not for those employees they would have indeed blown off all their fortune on some idiotic snake-oil-get-richer-yet-quick scheme. It is their social position at the start of their lives that grants them the ability to stay on top. Contracts their parents made, deals that noone can get anymore etc.
Are there new eager, dedicated people becoming wealthy? Of course. Problem is, out of 1000 similarly dedicated and skilled, one will get anywhere. Just like those turtles out in the tropics racing to water's edge through the gauntlet of seagulls, skill and more importantly dedication matters far less then the ghust of wind that made the segull miss the one next to you.
Your problem is that you seek a black/white, foolproof, absolute solutions to problems that have none.
Religions are meant to address these unfair ways of life and as I already said, some find capitalism, the religion of choice. Unfortunately for them, it is a mere (albeit wisely designed) socio-economical theory meant to move the society forward despite of all the nonsense that people are prone to. In capitalism, it does not matter that fools are rich, because sooner or later, they are parted from their money. The process takes a loong time, longer the wealthier they are, but it happens. Unfortunately that works only in an actual capitalist society whereby one of its fundamental forces: competition is penalizing fools and rewarding the clever. In this perversion we have today, competition is no longer a powerful force. Mega-corps have moved from competition in the market place into law making and war-mongering. Adam Smith in his design knew that extensive concentration of wealth will ruin the system so that is why he kept insisting on "free markets" devoid of ways where one can achieve position that is protected by things other then one's ability to compete.
Note that despite of this, capitalism does not apply to all aspects of life, for example some argue that things like basic medical services, education are beyond the scope. As well as things that are not capable of being "private property" (another tennent of the system) like, for example information.
but continue to use it in the same basic manner that made their parents wealth. How many can you name that came to wealth completely by blind luck?
Inheretance is the very definition of blind luck, unless you believe that virtuous lign up in a different queue to be born in the right circumstances. You are offering as proof of their cleverness the facts that such people can afford for others to manage their fortunes while they party and they are not utter and complete morons that can blow 100 milions on tips at a strip bar. So in your way of thinking, I would be right only if every single rich kid, turned out to have an IQ lesser then their shoe size and proceeded to buy 1000 pink RollsRoyces at the minute he turns 18? All he has to do is not spend more then the trust funds and companies his father set-up, which are run by professionals, generate. Many, who are in such exquisite circumstances are worshipped by star-sruck people (you probably can count yourself in there) and are indeed coached to
Hmm, as someone for example who demands for others to reveal their identity while he himself is hiding behind an alias. Was it not you who demanded that I give you my name and address and then (surprise here) it turned out that you are hiding behind your Slashdot alias. While dispensing labels like "coward" to others. Just like any arrogant, self-richeous, right-wing buffoon, would.
I had to pay for it, but I had to pay for %15 less of it. (just like the console mod probably does not crack every game, say 1 in 10).
Ok, so I am getting more "playtime" out of the games on the PS/2, perheaps the modchip is only able to crack 1 out of 10. Most of them are sold by the same company just like the oil I buy is distributed by, say, Exxon.
You are forgetting that despite of the amount of work that goes into the production (or pumping out) of the stuff in both cases I am "cheating". In the case of gas, I get more than the oil company would wish me to get and in case of the game I am getting more then the game distributor wanted me to get. In case of oil, some poor Iraqi is probably gonna go hungry (if noone else buys the extra 15% of oil) or in case of the game some developer who worked his ass of is going to not get paid. Same thing.
The problem is that people expect to make me a slave to their various throw-away consumables (gas, electricity, satellite tv, games) and then get all pissed off if I find a way to save gas, generate solar power, decode signals or mod consoles. Except that the gas companies being the "old" school of business havent figured out how to stop me.... yet.
You bet your ass it does! If I install my new fuel-injection-cleaner-and-fuel-saver-o-matic-gizm o I will save 15% on fuel. Ergo 15% of the gas for which I had to pay before is now free to me! Whoopie!
Spoken like a true, courageous, having nothing to lose Slashdotter with his home address, phone number and mugshot in his Slashdot journal... oh, wait!
Oh yes, and I pull wings off of flies in my spare time. That is if I get any spare time when I am not imposing my will on others here on Slashdot with my mighty keyboard. In case you haven't noticed I do reply to you in these ways because it is you who is abrasive, arrogant and display my-way-or-the-high-way attitude without actually bothering to prove your points. Oh, and look up the definition of "sociopath" one of these days. It would help a bit if you were to insult people with words you actually understood.
Thats true. However you failed to note that Germany of the 30's was in fact a free market economy, and it did suffer the effects of the Great Depression, that is one of the reasons Hitler came to power. The capitalists at the time backed him up. And while its true that Germany ceased to be a free market economy shortly afterwards, the people who were at the helm of the change were the top capitalists of the country. History bites and you just seem to selectively ignore its lessons.
Wealth and Power generally are concentrated around those that are motivated and show leadership abilities...number of people will always be more motivated...jealousy... not motivated
While it is true that political power is likely to be concentrated (temporarilly pending re-election) around some individuals, excessive concentration of wealth is not good for anyone. This is probably hopelessly lost on you, since you seem to be a victim of the modern twist on the "capitalism-as-religion" education. Christians believe that virtuous will go to heaven, you do believe that motivated will become super-wealthy. Sinners to hell, lazy to poverty etc. I have news for you, while there is colleration between skill and motivation and wealth in some instances, heredity, social standing at birth but more importantly blind luck have far more to do with it then anything else. The fact that you do not grasp this shows that you do live in some sort of fantasy world which has little to do with how this planet operates.
Capitalism as I repeated many times, is the the theory that developed (in 19th century) as an alternative to other socio-economic theories such as the one by Marx. It can only be analysed in that context. It was meant as a means to move society forward while acknowledging (unlike Marx) that most people will remain ignorant, greedy and selfish. It was to be self-balancing in design whereby the concentration of wealth is counter-balanced by ruthless but fair competition. In capitalism (contrary to its name) not a capitalist but a consumer is the king. At least that is how Adam Smith had planned it.
Like communism however, some people thought it was a great idea to use this system with some "modifications" to make sure they came permanently on top. Just like Marx have never intended for the USSR to come to being, Adam Smith would be aghast at the modern pan-national corporation because its power has sooo long ago removed the checks and balances he so painstakingly inserted into his system.
I am growing real tired of explaining the purpose of this delicate clock full of exquisite gears that Adam Smith has created to those who are brandishing it around as a hammer to drive nails into walls and claim that it is they who truly understand. I am just jeallous of their new hammer, thats all.
Uhm... well no. 1+0.5 is indeed > 1. But I mentioned that A was replaced. Is it 0.5? 0.1 now? What? Is the sum still greater then 1? So is the strength of the new combined restriction greater? Since it is not an easy to calculate numeric value, it becomes only your opinion that it is. Some disagree. Hence the whole problem.
And that is precisely what I meant and that is the only thing that I meant, I the general terms about any license (thats why I replied in... wait for it...general terms without mentioning any such licenses by name).
Let me spell it out again: what you consider "freedom" somebody else considers a "restriction" because your "freedom" gets in the way of his convictions and thus prevents him from doing as he pleases. And for thar reason I listed 3 different ways people can feel about this issue, all valid from their individual perspectives
Yet here you are, demanding that I bow down to your, true, one and only embodiment of universal freedom, the ultimate, last word there ever will be on the subject, the BSD license. Which incidently I did not mention for I had no inkling that someone can be so fixated on it.
For the sake of simplicity and my headache I will use your own definition here.
The case at hand is that Restriction B is being introduced into the license that replaces Restriction A. That is an explicit restriction on some ways of distributing the software replaces an implicit restriction on the types (and presumably numbers) of developers that will contribute with another set of developers. Is the B + the "improved" A stronger then A alone?
Its all arbitrary hased on one's pre-existing convictions. Which is all that I was trying to say here from the get go. One man's "freedom" is another's slavery.
Again you are listing your perception of choice i.e. your definiton of "freedom".
Conversly I could say that a developer outside those companies has no incentive to contribute to something whereby he will likely end up paying for his own code when version 1.5 of the project is open in public domain and corporate-sponsored version 1.5b, closed only is the only one working with the company's hardware.
You assumed that freedom for the companies to do as they please, automatically translates to freedom for all.
You've lost it. What are you talking about? Explain where did I mention BSD in my original post?! To make it easier for you: here it is (I did resist the temptation to use big letters to aid someone's slow comprehension):
Freedom to not worry that someone will misapropriate your and the community's hard work for his/her profit while giving nothing back?
Where is BSD mentioned there? Public Domain? Apache License? X11? What? Or perheaps I was speaking about a developer who feels that contributing under any of those is not something he would do as it is against his convictions, ergo an alternative offers him a choice = freedom.
There is something particularly annoying about BSD zealots who spoil for a fight looking for pretexts in places they were not even fscking mentioned!
From webster:
As you can see this is quite an arbitrary concept and can mean a priviledge or an exemption from control. That is why I (for the purpose of this discussion) defined what kind of freedom (or from what power or influence specifically) I mean. What you and many others are grasping here for is some sort of fundamental "freedom" with which my concept of "freedom" is at odds with. As I explained elsewhere on this thread, there is no such thing as universal "freedom" that everyone can agree upon, save for some very obvious cases (say freedom from enslavement).
I will repeat: there are only specific freedoms from specific kinds of control and influences which people find unequally important based on their background. Thus GPL folks find freedom from the negative influence of their work being taken and used for profit more important then freedom from additional conditions and licensing terms. Is the GPL more free then BSD? It depends on what power or control, or what priviledge do you mean!
Sigh...
From the BSD license:
Here are three ways in which I could misapropriate BSD code: Distribute source or binary without the notice and endorse my shit with BSD developer's name.Is that what you are asking for?