Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter whether it's physical or not. Giving it "nice" terms makes it no less wrong.
Indeed it is, but stealing involves two halves: you gain something, and someone else loses it (without prior agreement). Half of this, indeed the most important half is missing here.
If you went and cloned someone else's car, that would be analogous. Your physical/nonphysical distinction is a strawman.
This development of Black Holes on the planet poses big questions about the dangers and risks involved in handling Black Holes. If one gets out of control, it could potentially "eat" through our planet in no time.
Sorry to be boring, but practically, there's no real risk. These "Black Holes" are tiny, and their mass (and therefore gravitational pull) is proportional to the energy that went into creating them, according to the formular E=MC^2. We simply can't put enough energy in to give the hole any sizable pull, so it doesn't seed; rather, it collapses through Hawking Radiation.
I always thought that one should if anything vote the other way as your vote really counts in a close contest, but I realise that there is another factor: the president has a job to do, and he has more force with a solid backing, especially when acting internationally. Better to exaggerate his showing in order to give him more of a mandate.
I'd be inclined to reduce the lead if anything because I don't believe in focussing power, and I think that presidential power on the world stage in not in my interests; American ideology is not necessarily right, and I'd want to encourage internal diversity and experimentation by deliberately weakening a single focus of power. For other powers to be overwhelmed with American force means that a potential to learn and experiment would have been lost.
This does not meant that we shouldn't act to influence others completely, but rather that international policy should come from consensus and a general agreement as to what needs to be stopped or encouraged. So that one should in fact be forthright in opposing hardline communists.
Disclaimer: I am not American. I am British; I imagined what it was like to be an American to generate my response.
India have a very large population. The real question has to be what impact these new jobs make the their economy; it would make sense if we reduce the help we give India (so as to give it to those who need it more), in the ratio 1:2 (say) as their tax revenue increases. In this way, the Indian government still has an incentive to promote IT, but we're also able to do more good with our aid budgets.
Having said that, our aid budgets are increadably low, and there are a lot of very poor people in the world in India and elsewhere. It's unlikely that India will be earning enough to make a serious difference for a while, so maybe we shouldn't be looking to reduce aid just yet.
Actually, by going public, you now need to fulfill the terms under your new contract with shareholders. Your contract does not need to say that you are going to do everything in your powers to maximise shareholder value, although it often does, and to make such a promise might help you to raise more cash.
Maybe. "Do not feed the trolls" and all that. To make sense of this troll, one needs to assume that the "hacker" got away with something; I simply wish to show that annother view is possible: justice, to some extent, prevailed.
Whilst "do not feed the trolls" is a good general rule, this troll induces a false dichotomy, and whether one agrees or disagrees, the presumption that this guy did something bad is left as an aftertaste. Not to answer is to leave that aftertaste. -- On another note (since we're OT anyway), I didn't mean to oppose to tenor of your.sig when I commented on it, only to remark that it can be easy to draw unhelpful inferences from such simplification. I do think that in many ways your.sig is a good first approximation.
This is the general belief of the BSD-license community (if there is one:)). They want open source yet are happy for anyone that can make use of the code.
Ah, but you get more open source by making it transitive. The point (of GPL) is to subvert IPR, not to allow one's code to revert to the restricted status quo in one generation.
This is why I use BSD-style licenses on the code I open source. If I limit how high you can raise your limbs, I am reducing your freedom for little or no gain.
I meant literally. IPR are not restrictions on your limbs; they are your rights to bind others'. If my code is subsequently closed, more people are bound. There is less aggregated freedom. To say "you may not use my code with restrictive licences" is akin to saying "you may not enslave my servants".
Just as I am against punishing people before a crime may be committed, i.e., RIAA tax on music CD-R's., I dislike the GPL. The GPL assumes that all people are going to place more restrictions on the code, so all must have their freedom restricted.
This is only a valid comparison if their freedom is being restricted. It is not. A business model that requires proprietry code might be stymied, but that is another matter. The programmers can code as they chose, and can release the product of their endeavours, as before. Property is not freedom.
The GPL does not stop people from using your code to program; rather, it restricts subsequent programmers' rights to make use of our courts and police to limit others' freedoms in turn, with menaces.
If you limit freedom, then the GPL does not equal "Free" as in libre. Why limit others' freedom? People are always free to get the original code and use it instead.
I don't think you read this one properly! The GPL does not limit freedom; rather it prevents a subsequent programmer from restricting later users in turn. The subsequent programmer cannot make use of authority to do so, thus freedom is enhanced.
IPR laws are unfree. This is a chance to (locally and transitively) change the (meaning of the) law. BSD-style licences allow the law to revert, so the law stays broadly as it was. To change the law requires leverage.
As to your point about trust, programmers are often compromised, and the GPL can be used as leverage. Very few business are going to open source code if they have a choice, and the programmer will be contractually bound. Because of practical world pressures, the GPL does more for freedom than BSD-style licences do. The code you write will remain part of an ever-growing system of open-source software.
To maximise the quantity of your code in use, a BSD-style licence is correct, but to maximise freedom, GPL is surely better. The aim of the GPL is bigger: to create a superior software environment with considerably greater freedom to code.
I respect your decision to publish under a BSD-style licence, but I don't think that you have the GPL right.
People use the GPL as a means to prevent the code from seeing proprietary use. This security is acquired by a decrease in freedom for other developers.
You're missing something. Notably this: GPL-defeating use is use that would restrict freedom compared to the alternative of following the licences' terms. Intellectual property law _is_ restrictive; to attempt to subvert it means to establish a different default, ie. one cannot close the code.
Making the assumption that others will simply "steal" (copy) the code without giving money or code is insulting to many of your fellow open source developers.
If they choose to be insulted, they're free to feel that way. This point is irrelevent to the issue of freedom, however.
If you are going to share, why are you so intent to limit your sharing? If some people do not pay you money or code, why be upset? You were not charging for money or code in the first place.
Actually it wouldn't upset me. My aim would be to encourage more open-source code, and, more generally, an open-source environment. It's not a question of how I feel.
Let me put it this way: If restricting others' rights is bad, then closed-sorce software is bad. If it is good, then the GPL is fine. IPR means that one restricts others' rights. If one wishes to subvert IPR, one needs to ensure that one has an alternate IPR that pre-empts it.
Your talk of programmers' rights to use a more restrictive licence makes no sense when one realises that laws are not part of nature, but man-made. There is nothing special about the current state of intellectual property law. Freedom is not property, but is rather (to a first approximation) to right to use your limbs as you wish. The GPL does not stop people from using your code to program; rather, it restricts subsequent programmers' rights to make use of our courts and police to limit others' freedoms in turn, with menaces.
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Maybe so, but in which direction does it apply? Is it pro or anti?
When the law defaults to restriction, surely this means that we should aim to subvert such laws. How about writing better default terms into our contracts? Something like the GPL, maybe?
Assumptions. Linux is what I use, but it would be hard to deny that some people's preferences are so strong that they would be offended were the wrong distribution shipped. Since it's so easy to install, why risk the downside? I suspect that support has a lot to do with it too, though.
That's probably why I got my "flamebait" mod though. Must remember: boring posts only.
Slashdot Mirror
If you went and cloned someone else's car, that would be analogous. Your physical/nonphysical distinction is a strawman.
The funny mod is the perfect mod for Karma-whoring "Article text" posts!
Take here: the Americans have it better: they work more hours, and the Europeans if anything think that the Americans should work fewer!
I mean, work is good, so more work is better, right?
I'd be inclined to reduce the lead if anything because I don't believe in focussing power, and I think that presidential power on the world stage in not in my interests; American ideology is not necessarily right, and I'd want to encourage internal diversity and experimentation by deliberately weakening a single focus of power. For other powers to be overwhelmed with American force means that a potential to learn and experiment would have been lost.
This does not meant that we shouldn't act to influence others completely, but rather that international policy should come from consensus and a general agreement as to what needs to be stopped or encouraged. So that one should in fact be forthright in opposing hardline communists.
Disclaimer: I am not American. I am British; I imagined what it was like to be an American to generate my response.
You can always hash your old file-pieces when testing for how much of the file is already there...
Isn't it traditional for someone to post a bittorrent?
Avoid ScuntHorpe at all costs!
He's probably just buying other stuff.
Having said that, our aid budgets are increadably low, and there are a lot of very poor people in the world in India and elsewhere. It's unlikely that India will be earning enough to make a serious difference for a while, so maybe we shouldn't be looking to reduce aid just yet.
Actually, by going public, you now need to fulfill the terms under your new contract with shareholders. Your contract does not need to say that you are going to do everything in your powers to maximise shareholder value, although it often does, and to make such a promise might help you to raise more cash.
No, the BBC is run by cowards.
Dunno. I just meta-modded it unfair 'though.
You might want to dispute the neutrality of this article on copyleft, methinks.
ModTorrent
Maybe. "Do not feed the trolls" and all that. To make sense of this troll, one needs to assume that the "hacker" got away with something; I simply wish to show that annother view is possible: justice, to some extent, prevailed.
.sig when I commented on it, only to remark that it can be easy to draw unhelpful inferences from such simplification. I do think that in many ways your .sig is a good first approximation.
Whilst "do not feed the trolls" is a good general rule, this troll induces a false dichotomy, and whether one agrees or disagrees, the presumption that this guy did something bad is left as an aftertaste. Not to answer is to leave that aftertaste.
--
On another note (since we're OT anyway), I didn't mean to oppose to tenor of your
He should be paid! He showed up a security flaw, and instead of causing any direct damage, simply stole some bandwidth.
The cost of the shutdown should be considered as the cost of the flaw, not of his hack.
You should look at Stargoat's journal which has a lot on China and human rights. He seems to keep a serious eye on China.
IPR laws are unfree. This is a chance to (locally and transitively) change the (meaning of the) law. BSD-style licences allow the law to revert, so the law stays broadly as it was. To change the law requires leverage.
As to your point about trust, programmers are often compromised, and the GPL can be used as leverage. Very few business are going to open source code if they have a choice, and the programmer will be contractually bound. Because of practical world pressures, the GPL does more for freedom than BSD-style licences do. The code you write will remain part of an ever-growing system of open-source software.
To maximise the quantity of your code in use, a BSD-style licence is correct, but to maximise freedom, GPL is surely better. The aim of the GPL is bigger: to create a superior software environment with considerably greater freedom to code.
I respect your decision to publish under a BSD-style licence, but I don't think that you have the GPL right.
If they choose to be insulted, they're free to feel that way. This point is irrelevent to the issue of freedom, however.
Actually it wouldn't upset me. My aim would be to encourage more open-source code, and, more generally, an open-source environment. It's not a question of how I feel.
Let me put it this way: If restricting others' rights is bad, then closed-sorce software is bad. If it is good, then the GPL is fine. IPR means that one restricts others' rights. If one wishes to subvert IPR, one needs to ensure that one has an alternate IPR that pre-empts it.
Your talk of programmers' rights to use a more restrictive licence makes no sense when one realises that laws are not part of nature, but man-made. There is nothing special about the current state of intellectual property law. Freedom is not property, but is rather (to a first approximation) to right to use your limbs as you wish. The GPL does not stop people from using your code to program; rather, it restricts subsequent programmers' rights to make use of our courts and police to limit others' freedoms in turn, with menaces.
When the law defaults to restriction, surely this means that we should aim to subvert such laws.
How about writing better default terms into our contracts? Something like the GPL, maybe?
This article might help!
Simpler explanation: MyDoom creators are seeking help from OS fans to spread their worm.
As in "hey, cool, I've got the MyDoom virus; I'll let it run for a little while longer before wiping it".
Result: more hacked systems to act as open relays with keyloggers to pick up bank details...
This virus is cunning in other ways, such as how it shares on Kazza; why not appeal to those who'd give it a helping hand in DDOSing SCO?
Assumptions. Linux is what I use, but it would be hard to deny that some people's preferences are so strong that they would be offended were the wrong distribution shipped. Since it's so easy to install, why risk the downside? I suspect that support has a lot to do with it too, though.
That's probably why I got my "flamebait" mod though. Must remember: boring posts only.