"Public software". Not as glamorous as "free" but it fits. The idea is that it resides in the public domain, much like other intellectual property owned by all, like old songs and such, correct?
In addition to that, it sounds like its named after a girl. That is the smoothest thing I've heard about this week. Instead of dweeby acronyms, imagine if all languages were named in honor of the ladies.
I'm guessing its pretty loud but I have to imagine these things could be deployed from a Predator in volume and quickly get a good picture of the interior of a compound/cave/stronghold before they were destroyed by an enemy.
I see you are pro-legalization when it comes to marijuana. While I agree that this step would eliminate a seedy underground (pun intended),
what very real impact do you think it would have on the economy of California? True, if it were available at the drug store, young college kids wouldn't have to be exposed to a subcultural underground bent on toppling Western Civilization to get their pot. Of all the states, Arizona, Nevada, and California seem most ripe for such a change. However, consider the hit to their economies - all of a sudden you have many, many underground drug dealers out of work. If they're not out of work, their supply chain has definitely been mangled. Where will they turn when the recession hits? Will they try to push other drugs? Shouldn't we just legalize them all?
Also, what of the enforcement officials, DEA and the like, who not only have salaries but also buy technology in droves to help track down the big-time dealers? Where will these people be re-inserted into your economic vision?
There is a very real, if not shaky, and illegal, economy that supports the weed habit of California these days. There is also an economy that fights it. Where or what do you see these economies dissapating into if you are successful with your "common sense" legalization of marijuana?
And, how is your personal consumption of marijuana? Was the thong an idea conceived of under or not under the influence?
Preclude was a horrible choice of words, I agree. Dammit, my boss does always edit the hell out of my writeups. And I'm sure you make more money than me as well. But so what, I'm young, I'm just learning. And so are my friends. But I see many of my friends enraptured with this idea that Linus Torvalds is some type of messiah who gives away things for free. The attitude that Linux should be free seems just like the idea that music should be free, and everything free free free. Give it all away. For shame people should charge money! I know - who will win the right to charge money - that is the question here. Maybe I don't understand the whole model. Perhaps the idea is that with a free product the reseller can make a larger margin. That would make sense. Am I right?
Why isn't Linus a fantastically rich man if the product is superior? In business, I look at spending money like voting: every dollar you spend is a vote. And if someone blocks you from voting for them by denying you the oppurtunity to pay them, why will they feel inclined to vote for you?
I don't know - I believe in the Messiah, its just not Linus Torvalds. He's a commie bastard, in my book
Please: rip me apart.
Why not charge for Linux? It seems hypocritical to me that Linux should be taken seriously as a business system but that it shouldn't cost anything. I'm upset with the crusade for free software. The rest of the world doesn't give a crap about most software, free or not. If you feel yourself to be a charitable person, then by all means volunteer your time and heart to a worthy organization, perhaps a soup kitchen or a children's hospital. But stop parading the idea of free software around as if it were some type of messianic paradigm, because its not - profitable, usable software is best put to use in a business system and thats its. The very nature of business precludes money for a piece of property. Linux is not a magical religious tome, shrouded in mist above the lake of the ancients. It is not sacred. It can be bought and sold, and rightfully so. Thats business baby.
Outside the tech world, linux users are hippies, just barely still democratic. They use and work on a system of knowledge steeped in time honored and capitalist traditions (division of labor(modularity), stability(conservatism), diversification (to the point of parties spanning the globe contributing anonymously, about as diversified an investment as possible). Why not just follow through and charge for the product? At this point the free software community is stagnating competition. Lets get some dollars floating around here guys, not liberal crys of SCO contempt!
Slashdot Mirror
Those America Online employees are in my hopes and prayers. Who knows maybe America Online is outsourcing their jobs. That would make me laugh.
"Public software". Not as glamorous as "free" but it fits. The idea is that it resides in the public domain, much like other intellectual property owned by all, like old songs and such, correct?
"I think Howard Strauss ought to be informed of the billions of dollars being invested in free software development by major corporations"
In addition to that, it sounds like its named after a girl. That is the smoothest thing I've heard about this week. Instead of dweeby acronyms, imagine if all languages were named in honor of the ladies.
I'm guessing its pretty loud but I have to imagine these things could be deployed from a Predator in volume and quickly get a good picture of the interior of a compound/cave/stronghold before they were destroyed by an enemy.
I see you are pro-legalization when it comes to marijuana. While I agree that this step would eliminate a seedy underground (pun intended), what very real impact do you think it would have on the economy of California? True, if it were available at the drug store, young college kids wouldn't have to be exposed to a subcultural underground bent on toppling Western Civilization to get their pot. Of all the states, Arizona, Nevada, and California seem most ripe for such a change. However, consider the hit to their economies - all of a sudden you have many, many underground drug dealers out of work. If they're not out of work, their supply chain has definitely been mangled. Where will they turn when the recession hits? Will they try to push other drugs? Shouldn't we just legalize them all? Also, what of the enforcement officials, DEA and the like, who not only have salaries but also buy technology in droves to help track down the big-time dealers? Where will these people be re-inserted into your economic vision? There is a very real, if not shaky, and illegal, economy that supports the weed habit of California these days. There is also an economy that fights it. Where or what do you see these economies dissapating into if you are successful with your "common sense" legalization of marijuana? And, how is your personal consumption of marijuana? Was the thong an idea conceived of under or not under the influence?
Preclude was a horrible choice of words, I agree. Dammit, my boss does always edit the hell out of my writeups. And I'm sure you make more money than me as well. But so what, I'm young, I'm just learning. And so are my friends. But I see many of my friends enraptured with this idea that Linus Torvalds is some type of messiah who gives away things for free. The attitude that Linux should be free seems just like the idea that music should be free, and everything free free free. Give it all away. For shame people should charge money! I know - who will win the right to charge money - that is the question here. Maybe I don't understand the whole model. Perhaps the idea is that with a free product the reseller can make a larger margin. That would make sense. Am I right? Why isn't Linus a fantastically rich man if the product is superior? In business, I look at spending money like voting: every dollar you spend is a vote. And if someone blocks you from voting for them by denying you the oppurtunity to pay them, why will they feel inclined to vote for you? I don't know - I believe in the Messiah, its just not Linus Torvalds. He's a commie bastard, in my book
Please: rip me apart. Why not charge for Linux? It seems hypocritical to me that Linux should be taken seriously as a business system but that it shouldn't cost anything. I'm upset with the crusade for free software. The rest of the world doesn't give a crap about most software, free or not. If you feel yourself to be a charitable person, then by all means volunteer your time and heart to a worthy organization, perhaps a soup kitchen or a children's hospital. But stop parading the idea of free software around as if it were some type of messianic paradigm, because its not - profitable, usable software is best put to use in a business system and thats its. The very nature of business precludes money for a piece of property. Linux is not a magical religious tome, shrouded in mist above the lake of the ancients. It is not sacred. It can be bought and sold, and rightfully so. Thats business baby. Outside the tech world, linux users are hippies, just barely still democratic. They use and work on a system of knowledge steeped in time honored and capitalist traditions (division of labor(modularity), stability(conservatism), diversification (to the point of parties spanning the globe contributing anonymously, about as diversified an investment as possible). Why not just follow through and charge for the product? At this point the free software community is stagnating competition. Lets get some dollars floating around here guys, not liberal crys of SCO contempt!