However, I'd like to point out the city has spent millions of dollars in corporate welfare trying to lure businesses into the downtown area, where no one will ever go to shop, including one big department store that got a new, free building at the taxpayers expense, and then left a couple of years later because they weren't making a good profit.
I'd love to see the city government start competing with businesses and giving people things they want, instead of giving handouts to corporations so they can build stores no one will want to shop at.
Hell, even the 2 new stadiums were corporate handouts that the people didn't want; there was a referendum on whether they should use tax money to build stadiums, which failed, after which they just did it anyway. Since the Pirates are horrible and no one wants to watch them anyway, and the average citizen who hasn't had season tickets in their family for 5 generations can't get tickets to a Steelers game, that's hardly benefiting anything close to a majority.
A less pro-business administration could afford snowplows andwifi.
Right. When I have the right to tell the telcos they can't route their wires over or under my property without negotiating a free-market price with me, I'll listen to their arguments about government interference in business.
Your religion example is ridiculous. The rights of minorities (especially religious minorities, right there in the very first amendement) are protected from government interference by the Constitution. Setting up a religious daycare center would be clearly illegal; very few people would argue that point
However, if the democratically elected government wants to do anything that it's not prohibited from doing, it can. If you don't like democracy, get some new Constitutional amendments, or go set up some objectivist fascist state somewhere.
Here a better one: you can buy a great wood chisel that's sharp and does everything you want, but its StaySharp(tm) technology is protected by a patent so you're not allowed to make copies of it on your own in different sizes to do different types of woodworking.
Your friend will let you borrow his set of old, dull chisels, which won't really work for the project you're doing, but he's happy to let you try to sharpen them, or make a new set based on the design (which isn't protected by any patents), and he and his friends will even maybe come over and help you sharpen them, if they feel like it.
The real problem with biometrics that can be stolen is that if you lose something you have, it's trivial to replace it and invalidate the stolen copy. With something you are, once it's stolen, you're screwed. You can't just replace your fingerprints.
I still remember the sad time when everyone else at the AI Lab decided that it was a really bad thing to allow anyone anywhere on the Internet to log into their machines as RMS.
He disagreed with their decision to disable the access, but now his followers want to build a more secure OS than Windows. Oh how the definition of "free" has changed.
It's inherently immoral to deny access to your data to anyone who wants to see it. All that information wants to be free! How dare you lock it behind passwords, and try to find even more oppressive methods of keeping it in chains?
If you think business has just become dehumanizing in the past few years, you should read Marx. He was taking about business being dehumanizing long before you or your corporate masters were even born.
Public property cannot be converted into non-public property without diminishing the quantity of public property available.
Ok, that's certainly a tautology.
But deriving a new work from a public domain one doesn't convert public property into non-public property, so it's a bit of a non sequitur.
The proper analogy wouldn't be taking something that belongs to the public and keeping it for your own use, it's more akin to copying the design of public property (say, the traffic light on the corner), making changes to the design that you patent, and not letting the public use your changes. The traffic light on the corner keeps working the same as it always did, and you have something new that you can sell at a profit.
The argument that Disney is hypocritical for pushing for copyright extensions when most of their best works were based on public domain materials is a good one, but it's out of place in a discussion of software licenses. Unless you want to argue that anyone who takes BSD code and uses it in a GPL'ed project is a hypocrite, too--then feel free to pull of the Disney analogy and watch as you get modded "flamebait".
To be fair, the GNU website does refer to the license as "The GPL" as an abbreviation and "The GNU General Public License" when written in full, but only very rarely as "The GNU GPL", which is certainly confusing.
The new works are indeed proprietary. The original stories are still in the public domain; Disney can't sue you for making a new Snow White movie any more than Microsoft can sue you for using the same BSD socket code that they've "made proprietary" by using it in their closed source software.
And man do we all feel like fools for complaining about the huge influx of clueless newbies instead of getting in on the IPO.
There were certainly lots of people from outside universities and military bases using the Internet before 1995. You recall wrong. Even if by "Internet" you mean "WWW" you're off by a couple of years.
Well, it's better than the way most corporations seem to develop stuff, which involves moving step 4 before step 2. Or just dropping steps 2 and 3 altogether, because they can get expensive. It's easier to let someone else try all of your wild ideas, and when they find one that works, threaten to sue them.
I don't care if they want to spider me. I also don't really care if they exclusively spider me and don't include any other sites on the net, because I don't use their search engine and have no interest in how good or bad their results are.
I'm just pointing out that if they're not including a lot of sites but they do spider mine a couple of times a day, they're doing something wrong with their technology.
The MSN bot has been singlehandedly responsible for about a fivefold increase in my site's visits stats. My site is of no interest to anyone, and very rarely changes at all. Google rarely spiders me, and can find anything I've got on my site.
I don't know about depth searching, but there's definite;y something wrong with msn's search strategy.
The administrator of NASA will announce his retirement 1 week after the winning team is selected, and he will coincidentally be given a job as the CEO of Boeing or Lockheed a month later.
Because the EFF can't file a FOIA request to find out what your server admin is doing. Unless, of course, the government is snooping on your admin, too.
Whether it's fair to call the government "Big Brother" is another argument altogether, but if they are snooping on us in the way EFF is asking about, it sounds fair to me.
If you walk into my office solely for the purpose of saying hello, I will not throw things at you.
Do you interpret to mean that if you walk into my office for another purpose, I will throw things at you? If so, you might need to take a course in formal logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Objective C has been around for a lot longer than perl. Please do not use the term "Camel Case" when discussing it.
However, I'd like to point out the city has spent millions of dollars in corporate welfare trying to lure businesses into the downtown area, where no one will ever go to shop, including one big department store that got a new, free building at the taxpayers expense, and then left a couple of years later because they weren't making a good profit.
I'd love to see the city government start competing with businesses and giving people things they want, instead of giving handouts to corporations so they can build stores no one will want to shop at.
Hell, even the 2 new stadiums were corporate handouts that the people didn't want; there was a referendum on whether they should use tax money to build stadiums, which failed, after which they just did it anyway. Since the Pirates are horrible and no one wants to watch them anyway, and the average citizen who hasn't had season tickets in their family for 5 generations can't get tickets to a Steelers game, that's hardly benefiting anything close to a majority.
A less pro-business administration could afford snowplows andwifi.
Right. When I have the right to tell the telcos they can't route their wires over or under my property without negotiating a free-market price with me, I'll listen to their arguments about government interference in business.
However, if the democratically elected government wants to do anything that it's not prohibited from doing, it can. If you don't like democracy, get some new Constitutional amendments, or go set up some objectivist fascist state somewhere.
I live in Pittsburgh. We don't have direct sunlight here, you insensitive clod!
What hardware store sells urinals in multicolors that don't need to be painted? Inquiring minds want to know.
Here a better one: you can buy a great wood chisel that's sharp and does everything you want, but its StaySharp(tm) technology is protected by a patent so you're not allowed to make copies of it on your own in different sizes to do different types of woodworking.
Your friend will let you borrow his set of old, dull chisels, which won't really work for the project you're doing, but he's happy to let you try to sharpen them, or make a new set based on the design (which isn't protected by any patents), and he and his friends will even maybe come over and help you sharpen them, if they feel like it.
The real problem with biometrics that can be stolen is that if you lose something you have, it's trivial to replace it and invalidate the stolen copy. With something you are, once it's stolen, you're screwed. You can't just replace your fingerprints.
He disagreed with their decision to disable the access, but now his followers want to build a more secure OS than Windows. Oh how the definition of "free" has changed.
It's inherently immoral to deny access to your data to anyone who wants to see it. All that information wants to be free! How dare you lock it behind passwords, and try to find even more oppressive methods of keeping it in chains?
If you think business has just become dehumanizing in the past few years, you should read Marx. He was taking about business being dehumanizing long before you or your corporate masters were even born.
Ok, that's certainly a tautology.
But deriving a new work from a public domain one doesn't convert public property into non-public property, so it's a bit of a non sequitur.
The proper analogy wouldn't be taking something that belongs to the public and keeping it for your own use, it's more akin to copying the design of public property (say, the traffic light on the corner), making changes to the design that you patent, and not letting the public use your changes. The traffic light on the corner keeps working the same as it always did, and you have something new that you can sell at a profit.
The argument that Disney is hypocritical for pushing for copyright extensions when most of their best works were based on public domain materials is a good one, but it's out of place in a discussion of software licenses. Unless you want to argue that anyone who takes BSD code and uses it in a GPL'ed project is a hypocrite, too--then feel free to pull of the Disney analogy and watch as you get modded "flamebait".
To be fair, the GNU website does refer to the license as "The GPL" as an abbreviation and "The GNU General Public License" when written in full, but only very rarely as "The GNU GPL", which is certainly confusing.
The new works are indeed proprietary. The original stories are still in the public domain; Disney can't sue you for making a new Snow White movie any more than Microsoft can sue you for using the same BSD socket code that they've "made proprietary" by using it in their closed source software.
The copyright owner of the GPL'ed software could sue for statutory damages.
There were certainly lots of people from outside universities and military bases using the Internet before 1995. You recall wrong. Even if by "Internet" you mean "WWW" you're off by a couple of years.
Well, it's better than the way most corporations seem to develop stuff, which involves moving step 4 before step 2. Or just dropping steps 2 and 3 altogether, because they can get expensive. It's easier to let someone else try all of your wild ideas, and when they find one that works, threaten to sue them.
And I suppose the Mac version of Office is developed on Windows machines and never tested?
I'm just pointing out that if they're not including a lot of sites but they do spider mine a couple of times a day, they're doing something wrong with their technology.
I don't know about depth searching, but there's definite;y something wrong with msn's search strategy.
1. Blame Microsoft for a problem with Slashcode.
2. Get modded "informative".
3. ???
4. Profit!
The administrator of NASA will announce his retirement 1 week after the winning team is selected, and he will coincidentally be given a job as the CEO of Boeing or Lockheed a month later.
Whether it's fair to call the government "Big Brother" is another argument altogether, but if they are snooping on us in the way EFF is asking about, it sounds fair to me.
You misspelled "99%". Hope this helps.
Do you interpret to mean that if you walk into my office for another purpose, I will throw things at you? If so, you might need to take a course in formal logic.