"(a) IN GENERAL- There is hereby imposed on the first retail sale of merchandise effected via the Internet, by mail order through a catalog, or by direct sales other than through a local merchant, a tax equal to 5 percent of the price for which so sold."
If I read that right, then phone orders would be taxed as well...don't they count as 'direct sales'? -RN
The main problem with teaching creationism in schools along side evolution is that creationism is not a theory. It is part of a belief system. I have never read a 'theory of creationism'. Creationism makes no predictions, and is not based on any evidence. Creationism is basically the belief that Genesis is the literal truth. The days in Genesis are actualy 24-hour days, the human race was created out of literal dust in the form of one man, and one woman. Etc. The only thing creationists are capable of is to attempt to punch holes in real science, and come up with some crackpot theories to try to try to back up their claims. It is, to put it simply, bunk. Creationism does both Science and Christianity a great disservice.
Another problem is that creationism is based upon a Jewish-Christian text. You teach creationism as science, and you have to teach every other religion-based creation myth too. If people want their kids to learn creationism, they can bring them to a church sunday school on the subject. But a peculiar interpretation of a religious text does not belong in a science classroom.
(By the way, I am a devout Christian. I believe that God created the Earth, and mankind as well. I also believe that we are meant to explore the universe as best we can. Evolution is the best explaination for the facts, so I'll believe Evolution.)
> All possible combinations of energy forming matter. Energy is a finite commodity in the universe. We are moving toward equalibrium, but more importantly, there are a finate number of states that life can exist in. I suggest most of you take a look at "variation within kind" logic for a better take on who/what we are. Could support creationism, and is much more sound logic than evolution without boundries.
If you are going to argue against evolution, or anything for that matter, at least you could use complete sentances. I can't really find your point in that mess. If you want to try again, I'll be happy to discuss this with you. Or maybe this is some kind of joke, and I have no sense of humor today....
One can assume whatever one wants to assume, but one is probably assuming wrong.
The article is a popularized science thing...that sort of thing never has much real meat in it. It references a recent 'science' article...I'd suggest you check that out before assuming anything.
Yes, carbon dating has proved to be unreliable in some circumstances...changing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, etc, etc. Scientists know this. That's why they use *several* methods for determining the age of rocks. K-Ar, etc. That way, if one result is wrong, due to contamination, or some other factor, then it will stick out...the rock will appear older/younger according to that method, and they will throw out those results and use one of the other 10 or so known methods of dating.
> Why is every piece of evidence found that is linked to evolution always treated as proof. It's evidence, they even call it that, but then they treat it as proof.
Who treats which pieces of evidence as proof? The scientists involved? I don't think anyone is saying that this one finding 'proves' evolution. Evolution has already been 'proven'. All these samples do is *indicate* that single-celled life started almost 1 billion years before we previously thought.
> Science is not the end all of everything. I think that the scientific world as a whole is quite arrogant.
Again, I think you are misinterpreting science and scientists. No scientist claims to know everything...if you talk to the QM guys, they'll tell you that we *can't* know everything. Science is simply a method for understanding the universe around us through observation and logic.
> Many people would say, "that's not logical. science is the system of logical truth finding, and is the basis of solid understanding."
Solid understanding...of the universe as we know it. Science doesn't tell us anything about God, or spirituality. Science only deals with the observable, and the testable.
> That's true from the perspective of us looking out at everything, but in the perspective of everything out there and then how small we are, we are far to meek.
Maybe you mean 'not meek enough'. Yeah, maybe we are too arrogent. Then again, maybe not. We are, after all, formed in the image of God. Given dominion over the animals of the earth, and all that good stuff. Maybe we are special.
> It's cool to search for truth, but don't think that you know.
That's what science is all about. Finding out what you don't know.
That's pretty harsh on RMS, IMHO...but maybe deservedly so...I don't know the man. Plus I wouldn't say the GPL is immoral...if you don't like it, then don't write or re-use GPLed code. Dems da breaks, as they say. At least the source code is available at all. That's better than completely closed source...though maybe not as nice as completely open source...except for the author that wants his code used that way.
As far as I'm aware, the GPL hasn't really been tested in the courts...and software licenses in general haven't undergone very much rigorous testing, either. But I'd agree that one line of code wouldn't contaminate a million. Part of the reason I asked my original question is that I think 'derivitive work' needs to be very carefully defined in the GPL. I hope the new version does so.
Anybody have a link for the text of the LGPL? A cursory search hasn't turned anything up, and I don't have loads of time right now to hunt for it. Thanks in advance.
So incorporating a GPLed work 'infects' (I admit this term has negative connotation...do you have a better one?) the work you add it to. Size doesn't matter, and neither does the relative 'value' of the component you are incorporating to the entire work. That being said, would you say that the GPL is an 'innappropriate' (though of course it's the author's decision whether to GPL or not) license to use in the case of something like a device driver, which would potentially be useful in other systems, whose programmers may not want to use the GPL. Does the LGPL 'fix' this? i.e. a driver under the LGPL could be part of a GPLed OS, and also be incorporated into a non-GPLed OS, without the authors of the non-GPLed OS being 'forced' to switch to the GPL if they use the driver?
That may be a stupid question...I'm not very familiar with this LGPL thingy.
GPL has been called 'virus-like' due to the fact that all 'derivitive works' must also be covered under the GPL. This fact has been pointed at as being one of the major 'evils' of the GPL. I have been told that, for instance, a device driver covered under the GPL, which is written for Linux, cannot be used in another kernel because it would 'infect' whatever kernel it is used in with the GPL. What do you guys think? Is this the way the GPL actually works? And if so, is it an unreasonable demand?
This is the answer I come up with:
A kernel that uses a GPLed device driver is not a derivitive work, because said kernel stands on it's own without that device driver. For instance, a kernel without support for a soundblaster awe-32 sound card is still a fully functional kernel...it just lacks that specific piece of functionality. Of course, the driver itself is still under the GPL, so the source code for the driver must be released, etc. But the rest of the kernal is independant of the driver. If I'm right, however, what about things like the code for Linux's SMP functionality? A kernel is still a kernel without SMP...So can the SMP code be imported without infecting the kernel? You could keep breaking pieces off of the linux kernel until the 'new' kernel you are creating is almost entirely Linux GPLed kernel...at some point it would become a derivitive work, yes? Or am I just confusing myself here?
I am not Bruce Perens, nor do I play him on TV. However, I think I know where he's coming from.
I think he's talking about the type of relationship between a company and Linux, not the amount that a company (or organization) has benefitted Linux. NASA would still be NASA without linux. Therefore it is a benefactor. NASA probably benifits from it's involvement with Linux, but Linux does not define what NASA is.
Redhat puts more into Linux, but Redhat would not be Redhat as we know it without Linux. You could also probably say that Linux would not be Linux as we know it without Redhat. That's what 'symbiotic' means. I think Mr. Perens would be the last person to bash Redhat...unless he's jealous because more poeple have heard of 'Redhat software' than 'Bruce Perens'.;-)
Main Entry: abstruse Pronunciation: &b-'strüs, ab- Function: adjective Etymology: Latin abstrusus, from past participle of abstrudere to conceal, from abs-, ab- + trudere to push -- more at THREAT Date: 1599
Well, it looks like I *really* need to read the BSD license to respond to that one properly...I didn't mean to get involved in a license-war here. I should have known better, huh?;-)
But, since I haven't read it, I'll grant you that linux is worthless if you want to grab some kernel code to use in another OS. It's also worthless if you want it to fetch your slippers (ok, I just *know* some smartass is going to send me a link of their linux-controller robotic dog...). But it is useful for people who want a working, stable, cross-platform, fully-functional OS. It's also useful for someone who wants to know how their OS *works*, and maybe contribute to making it work *better*. But maybe the BSD-style license is better. I don't know, I haven't read it. But that doesn't make a program unuseable simply because it's written under the GPL.
I didn't say it was more popular. I didn't say it was 'better' (for what?). I did say that I think it's an appropriate license for 'general use'. I think programs covered by the GPL are not diminished because they use the GPL. They aren't useful to someone who wants to incorporate them into their own proprietary project...But they are very useful to the 'end-user'...especially a hacker/programmer type end-user.
Of course, the BSD-style license may very well be better in every respect. I haven't read it. I probably should, but I think The Boss expects me to get *some* work done today...
Yeah, you're right...you didn't say worthless. My bad.
>"GPL forbids *general* use of the source code, e.g. redistributing a derived work but not the source (see clause 3 of the GPL)."
>I only said that. Nothing more. Do I have to repeat myself again?
>In other words: You can`t redistribute a derived work from something GPL'ed without not allowing others access to the source (clause 3 of the GPL). >This belongs to what I think is *general* use.
That's the definition I have a problem with. 'General use' doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the source code is available...If a program is GPLed, it doesn't affect how useful it is to the end user.
But I think we're quibbling over semantics here...
Which isn't to say that the GPL isn't restrictive! It is. But is that a bad thing? For some applications, yes. For others, no. I think the GPL is perfect for distributed projects like seti@home. Probably 1/2 of the goal of these projects is to prove that distributed computing *can* work, and to help figure out how to make it work. If the code for S@His GPLed, that means that:
a) Programmers around the world can tweak it to achieve maximum performance, and maximum portability. b) Other distributed projects could use the code for their own means. With the restriction that they must, in turn, release their code, with any modifications (improvements to the code, maybe making it more suited to a specific task.) c) No-one could legally 'steal' it. For example, you wouldn't see a 'MS distributed software 1.0'. A product sold by MS, for a profit, which the original creators of the code get no credit (or money) for. The creators of the code can feel safe in the fact that, at least, they will get credit for their work.
>"Whereas if the software were placed under the GPL the code becomes useless for general use."
> And he's absolutly right here. GPL forbids *general* use of the source code, e.g. redistributing a derived work but not the source (see clause >3 of the GPL). Q.E.D >(I only have to show you one example, it doesn't matter how weak it is, that's mathematics:-)
I have a problem with your definition of 'general use' here. From your comment, you seem to think that if the source code for a program is available (basically what clause 3 is all about), then the program is therefore worthless. Here's my counterexample: Linux. I hope you agree that it's useful for 'general use'. People can obtain linux for free. Companies can also make money by selling their own modified version of it. (Red Hat, et. al.) What other definition of 'general use' is there? It can be used by people, for free, and it can successfully be used to make money.
That's logic.
Now you could make an argument that GPL is not the best licence for all programs, and not for the S@H client specifically. And I'd probably agree with you. But saying that the GPL does not work at all is easily disproven, as I think I've shown above.
80 of them use Microsoft Internet Explorer. 20 of them use Netscape.
Ok so far? Now, we know that 30 people use America Online. AOL uses IE exclusively. All of those 30 people must, therefore, use IE. The other 50 IE users are using some other ISP. If all AOLers had to switch to Netscape (not counting people using older versions, etc.), then 30 people from the IE side go to the Netscape side. Making it a 50/50 split. Change the word 'people' to 'percent of people', and you've got 'the real world'.
hmmm...I guess the above explains why I'm not a math teacher...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I was kinda impressed by that. They managed to make it look even *uglier* than c-net. I didn't think that was possible.
If I read that right, then phone orders would be taxed as well...don't they count as 'direct sales'? -RN
The main problem with teaching creationism in schools along side evolution is that creationism is not a theory. It is part of a belief system. I have never read a 'theory of creationism'. Creationism makes no predictions, and is not based on any evidence. Creationism is basically the belief that Genesis is the literal truth. The days in Genesis are actualy 24-hour days, the human race was created out of literal dust in the form of one man, and one woman. Etc. The only thing creationists are capable of is to attempt to punch holes in real science, and come up with some crackpot theories to try to try to back up their claims. It is, to put it simply, bunk. Creationism does both Science and Christianity a great disservice.
Another problem is that creationism is based upon a Jewish-Christian text. You teach creationism as science, and you have to teach every other religion-based creation myth too. If people want their kids to learn creationism, they can bring them to a church sunday school on the subject. But a peculiar interpretation of a religious text does not belong in a science classroom.
(By the way, I am a devout Christian. I believe that God created the Earth, and mankind as well. I also believe that we are meant to explore the universe as best we can. Evolution is the best explaination for the facts, so I'll believe Evolution.)
> Math logic:
Or a lack thereof.
> All possible combinations of energy forming matter. Energy is a finite commodity in the universe. We are moving toward equalibrium, but more importantly, there are a finate number of states that life can exist in. I suggest most of you take a look at "variation within kind" logic for a better take on who/what we are. Could support creationism, and is much more sound logic than evolution without boundries.
If you are going to argue against evolution, or anything for that matter, at least you could use complete sentances. I can't really find your point in that mess. If you want to try again, I'll be happy to discuss this with you. Or maybe this is some kind of joke, and I have no sense of humor today....
One can assume whatever one wants to assume, but one is probably assuming wrong.
The article is a popularized science thing...that sort of thing never has much real meat in it. It references a recent 'science' article...I'd suggest you check that out before assuming anything.
Yes, carbon dating has proved to be unreliable in some circumstances...changing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, etc, etc. Scientists know this. That's why they use *several* methods for determining the age of rocks. K-Ar, etc. That way, if one result is wrong, due to contamination, or some other factor, then it will stick out...the rock will appear older/younger according to that method, and they will throw out those results and use one of the other 10 or so known methods of dating.
> Why is every piece of evidence found that is linked to evolution always treated as proof. It's evidence, they even call it that, but then they treat it as proof.
Who treats which pieces of evidence as proof? The scientists involved? I don't think anyone is saying that this one finding 'proves' evolution. Evolution has already been 'proven'. All these samples do is *indicate* that single-celled life started almost 1 billion years before we previously thought.
> Science is not the end all of everything. I think that the scientific world as a whole is quite arrogant.
Again, I think you are misinterpreting science and scientists. No scientist claims to know everything...if you talk to the QM guys, they'll tell you that we *can't* know everything. Science is simply a method for understanding the universe around us through observation and logic.
> Many people would say, "that's not logical. science is the system of logical truth finding, and is the basis of solid understanding."
Solid understanding...of the universe as we know it. Science doesn't tell us anything about God, or spirituality. Science only deals with the observable, and the testable.
> That's true from the perspective of us looking out at everything, but in the perspective of everything out there and then how small we are, we
are far to meek.
Maybe you mean 'not meek enough'. Yeah, maybe we are too arrogent. Then again, maybe not. We are, after all, formed in the image of God. Given dominion over the animals of the earth, and all that good stuff. Maybe we are special.
> It's cool to search for truth, but don't think that you know.
That's what science is all about. Finding out what you don't know.
Well...let me put it this way...
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.
That's pretty harsh on RMS, IMHO...but maybe deservedly so...I don't know the man. Plus I wouldn't say the GPL is immoral...if you don't like it, then don't write or re-use GPLed code. Dems da breaks, as they say. At least the source code is available at all. That's better than completely closed source...though maybe not as nice as completely open source...except for the author that wants his code used that way.
As far as I'm aware, the GPL hasn't really been tested in the courts...and software licenses in general haven't undergone very much rigorous testing, either. But I'd agree that one line of code wouldn't contaminate a million. Part of the reason I asked my original question is that I think 'derivitive work' needs to be very carefully defined in the GPL. I hope the new version does so.
Anybody have a link for the text of the LGPL? A cursory search hasn't turned anything up, and I don't have loads of time right now to hunt for it. Thanks in advance.
So incorporating a GPLed work 'infects' (I admit this term has negative connotation...do you have a better one?) the work you add it to. Size doesn't matter, and neither does the relative 'value' of the component you are incorporating to the entire work. That being said, would you say that the GPL is an 'innappropriate' (though of course it's the author's decision whether to GPL or not) license to use in the case of something like a device driver, which would potentially be useful in other systems, whose programmers may not want to use the GPL. Does the LGPL 'fix' this? i.e. a driver under the LGPL could be part of a GPLed OS, and also be incorporated into a non-GPLed OS, without the authors of the non-GPLed OS being 'forced' to switch to the GPL if they use the driver?
That may be a stupid question...I'm not very familiar with this LGPL thingy.
I have a question:
GPL has been called 'virus-like' due to the fact that all 'derivitive works' must also be covered under the GPL. This fact has been pointed at as being one of the major 'evils' of the GPL. I have been told that, for instance, a device driver covered under the GPL, which is written for Linux, cannot be used in another kernel because it would 'infect' whatever kernel it is used in with the GPL. What do you guys think? Is this the way the GPL actually works? And if so, is it an unreasonable demand?
This is the answer I come up with:
A kernel that uses a GPLed device driver is not a derivitive work, because said kernel stands on it's own without that device driver. For instance, a kernel without support for a soundblaster awe-32 sound card is still a fully functional kernel...it just lacks that specific piece of functionality. Of course, the driver itself is still under the GPL, so the source code for the driver must be released, etc. But the rest of the kernal is independant of the driver. If I'm right, however, what about things like the code for Linux's SMP functionality? A kernel is still a kernel without SMP...So can the SMP code be imported without infecting the kernel? You could keep breaking pieces off of the linux kernel until the 'new' kernel you are creating is almost entirely Linux GPLed kernel...at some point it would become a derivitive work, yes? Or am I just confusing myself here?
I am not Bruce Perens, nor do I play him on TV. However, I think I know where he's coming from.
;-)
I think he's talking about the type of relationship between a company and Linux, not the amount that a company (or organization) has benefitted Linux. NASA would still be NASA without linux. Therefore it is a benefactor. NASA probably benifits from it's involvement with Linux, but Linux does not define what NASA is.
Redhat puts more into Linux, but Redhat would not be Redhat as we know it without Linux. You could also probably say that Linux would not be Linux as we know it without Redhat. That's what 'symbiotic' means. I think Mr. Perens would be the last person to bash Redhat...unless he's jealous because more poeple have heard of 'Redhat software' than 'Bruce Perens'.
Main Entry: abstruse
Pronunciation: &b-'strüs, ab-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin abstrusus, from past participle of abstrudere to conceal, from abs-, ab- + trudere to push -- more at THREAT
Date: 1599
: difficult to comprehend
: RECONDITE
- abstrusely adverb
- abstruseness noun
source: http://www.m-w.com
'nuff said
Well, it looks like I *really* need to read the BSD license to respond to that one properly...I didn't mean to get involved in a license-war here. I should have known better, huh? ;-)
But, since I haven't read it, I'll grant you that linux is worthless if you want to grab some kernel code to use in another OS. It's also worthless if you want it to fetch your slippers (ok, I just *know* some smartass is going to send me a link of their linux-controller robotic dog...). But it is useful for people who want a working, stable, cross-platform, fully-functional OS. It's also useful for someone who wants to know how their OS *works*, and maybe contribute to making it work *better*. But maybe the BSD-style license is better. I don't know, I haven't read it. But that doesn't make a program unuseable simply because it's written under the GPL.
I didn't say it was more popular. I didn't say it was 'better' (for what?). I did say that I think it's an appropriate license for 'general use'. I think programs covered by the GPL are not diminished because they use the GPL. They aren't useful to someone who wants to incorporate them into their own proprietary project...But they are very useful to the 'end-user'...especially a hacker/programmer type end-user.
Of course, the BSD-style license may very well be better in every respect. I haven't read it. I probably should, but I think The Boss expects me to get *some* work done today...
-RN
Yeah, you're right...you didn't say worthless. My bad.
>"GPL forbids *general* use of the source code, e.g. redistributing a derived work but not the source (see clause 3 of the GPL)."
>I only said that. Nothing more. Do I have to repeat myself again?
>In other words:
You can`t redistribute a derived work from something GPL'ed without not allowing others access to the source (clause 3 of the GPL).
>This belongs to what I think is *general* use.
That's the definition I have a problem with. 'General use' doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the source code is available...If a program is GPLed, it doesn't affect how useful it is to the end user.
But I think we're quibbling over semantics here...
Which isn't to say that the GPL isn't restrictive! It is. But is that a bad thing? For some applications, yes. For others, no. I think the GPL is perfect for distributed projects like seti@home. Probably 1/2 of the goal of these projects is to prove that distributed computing *can* work, and to help figure out how to make it work. If the code for S@His GPLed, that means that:
a) Programmers around the world can tweak it to achieve maximum performance, and maximum portability.
b) Other distributed projects could use the code for their own means. With the restriction that they must, in turn, release their code, with any modifications (improvements to the code, maybe making it more suited to a specific task.)
c) No-one could legally 'steal' it. For example, you wouldn't see a 'MS distributed software 1.0'. A product sold by MS, for a profit, which the original creators of the code get no credit (or money) for. The creators of the code can feel safe in the fact that, at least, they will get credit for their work.
>"Whereas if the software were placed under the GPL the code becomes useless for general use."
:-)
> And he's absolutly right here. GPL forbids *general* use of the source code, e.g. redistributing a derived work but not the source (see clause
>3 of the GPL). Q.E.D
>(I only have to show you one example, it doesn't matter how weak it is, that's mathematics
I have a problem with your definition of 'general use' here. From your comment, you seem to think that if the source code for a program is available (basically what clause 3 is all about), then the program is therefore worthless. Here's my counterexample: Linux. I hope you agree that it's useful for 'general use'. People can obtain linux for free. Companies can also make money by selling their own modified version of it. (Red Hat, et. al.) What other definition of 'general use' is there? It can be used by people, for free, and it can successfully be used to make money.
That's logic.
Now you could make an argument that GPL is not the best licence for all programs, and not for the S@H client specifically. And I'd probably agree with you. But saying that the GPL does not work at all is easily disproven, as I think I've shown above.
Who should do their math right???
Think about it this way:
100 people are on the internet.
80 of them use Microsoft Internet Explorer.
20 of them use Netscape.
Ok so far? Now, we know that 30 people use America Online. AOL uses IE exclusively. All of those 30 people must, therefore, use IE. The other 50 IE users are using some other ISP. If all AOLers had to switch to Netscape (not counting people using older versions, etc.), then 30 people from the IE side go to the Netscape side. Making it a 50/50 split. Change the word 'people' to 'percent of people', and you've got 'the real world'.
hmmm...I guess the above explains why I'm not a math teacher...
-RN
> In the end, I can guess at Blackmore's motivations.
;-)
Her motivations, or her meme's?