God this is stupid! This isn't about lack of choice, it's about whiny nerds upset that the world doesn't work the way they want it to. What's the problem now? Linux adoption not fast enough for you? I've got two computers on my desk, neither of which have windows on them, and neither of which EVER had Windows on them. There is no need to "unbundle" Windows from computers because you can already get computers without Windows.
This won't harm Microsoft, it will harm PC manufacturers and resellers, who will bear the entirely of the market disatisfaction with the unbundling. People will still buy Windows, only now they will be paying Microsoft full price for it.
The big hurdle you whiners need to get over is that Windows has 90% market share because people have voluntarily chosen to buy Windows or PC with bundled Windows. It may not be the choice you would have made, but that give you no excuse to government and its police to impose your will on others. IF this is that important to you, get off your high horse and go out and buy a computer without Windows on it. Sheesh.
You mean God is a utilitarian? He can't create something that is without purpose? He can't create a flaw? Everything he does must be understandable by man?
I understand that this is a common viewpoint among creationists, but I was asking about evolutionists. Why are evolutionists always seeking explanation and purpose? I'm not just talking about this article, because I've seen this elsewhere.
Does everything have to have a purpose? That's far too deterministic a philosophy for my tastes. Maybe the appendix doesn't have a purpose, is not part of a plan, has nothing whatsoever to do with survival of the fittest. Maybe it's just a quirk of intestinal development. Maybe its benign enough that there was no reason [sic] to cull it from the gene pool.
So what's your solution? Short of gunpoint, you can't force someone to speak their grandparent's language if they don't want to. Throwing money at the problem won't do anything.
I would propose the opposite solution, and abolish the BIA, incorporate the tribes, give them their reservation land outright, and stop treating them as children needing the white man's care and concern. Then it becomes their choice to pass on their language or not.
Precisely. For most places in Europe, it's only two or three hours drive to another nation speaking another language. But from where I live, it's a full day's drive to Mexico, but who wants to go to Mexico? In the other direction it's two days drive to Canada, where they speak English. (At least four days to get to where they speak French).
That's a separate issue though. You can put a warranty disclaimer, independent of whether you put conditions on distribution, or release it into the public domain.
Without a condition that says not to remove the warranty, you would be setting yourself up for legal disaster. I wish it weren't the case, but that's the reality we live in.
One could also have a licence saying you can do what you like (e.g., WTFPL as the other commenter pointed out).
That is essentially what the BSD, MIT and similar licenses do. One or two clauses saying not to remove the copyright and disclaimer, then the disclaimer. There's also an advantage in using an FSF/OSI approved license.
Because public domain means you can't attach a warranty disclaimer. In today's hyperlitigious society, that's something you need to do. Also, one cannot simply declare their work in the public domain in most countries. You need to get lawyers involved, file papers, etc.
If the second person is being a dick, the third person can go download their own copy. You make it sounds as if there are only two, and forever only be two, users of any given BSD licensed software. The multitude of FreeBSD users would be surprised to hear this.
The FSF and others have repeatedly asserted that the GPL on a library extends to any application that dynamically links to it. That is "use" as in "utilization". Furthermore, the linkage does not actually occur until runtime, which is "use" as in "execution".
Fortunately, most free software libraries are LGPL or freer.
China and India account for billions of people. The US counts for mere millions. Since we offer our excellent graduate level education on the global market, it is not surprising that there are ten foreign students for every one domestic. I see nothing wrong with this.
To a point that is true. But when the rule of law makes the jump from a body of legal principles, to the the arbitrary legislation of legal codes, then lawyers become rent seekers and collude with the legislators. They become a tax on society.
Precisely. If it was more profitable for a company to open source their product, then they will do it. And many have. It is natural for businesses to seek out and exploit advantages, and that is a good thing. They are not charities. Even in a world without copyrights, companies aren't going to provide public access to their repositories.
I am a consulant that works with a lot of companies, and I get to see the source for lots of proprietary software. The idea that they are embarassed by their code is ludicrous. They keep it proprietary for real and perceived trade secrets, don't want brand dilution, don't want to support user modified software, etc.
I've seen proprietary code that was truly embarassing. But I've seen a lot more that was of very high quality and design. Funny thing, I've seen the same range with Open Source software as well!
With the Pentagon strike, I can the rationale for such a plan far more easily than the New York claims, and the evidence, such as it is, appears to support this idea whereas the official story has numerous problems.
The evidence does NOT support that idea, because there is no evidence for a missile. Show me the missile parts. Show me the results of a warhead explosion as opposed to a crash with flammables. Show me the witnesses (full quotes, not out of context). The problem with Truther (and all other conspiracy) theories is that they START from the conclusion then make hand picked evidence fit that conclusion. But the 757 "theory" doesn't do that. It doesn't reject any of the factual evidence. It starts from the existing evidence (airplane parts, witnesses, destruction patterns, hijacked plane, etc) and works to the conclusion that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon.
Hundreds of witnesses? Come on now. If you are going to complain about conspiracy theorists spouting wild claims, you had better keep your own boots clean.
So I was off a bit. The point is, there are lots of witnesses. Doing a search I see numbers anywhere from 89 to 149. That's a LOT of witnesses. You can't dismiss them derisively away just because they don't support your predetermined conclusion.
Slackware already has the Platypus, though it hasn't used it in a while. When that stupid flightless waterfowl came along, the platypus got pushed into the corner.
And the Pentagon is another matter. I have yet to see anything which convinces me that a passenger jet struck that building.
So the hundreds of witnesses don't count?
The twists of logic needed to discount the existanct of a 757 is extremely tortuous. Occam's razor isn't infallible, but the grotesque deformations of rationality needed by the Truthers boggles the mind. Why would the perpetrators fly two airplanes into the World Trade Center, but then expend massive amounts of planning and resources to divert and hide the third plane that was supposed to hit the Pentagon? Why load a drone with 757 parts, when you could just fly the 757 into the Pentagon instead? It's thought processes are insane.
Besides, the computer industry shows that gradually *declining* prices is a very robust economic model, excellent in promoting technological development while rapidly increasing the options and wealth of customers.
Of course. But that is not deflation. Do not confuse deflation with a specific drop in prices. Deflation is the shrinkage of the money supply itself.
The fear of the deflation doomsayers is not the drop in prices, but widespread disinvestments. The biggest deflation we've had was at the start of the Great Depression. We were on a nominal gold standard at the time, but it was coupled with easy money fractional reserve banking, leading to inflation. As the banks busted in during the inevitable market correction, the money supply contracted sharply. People took their investments out of the market, and jobs dried up.
Freedom to Fascism is full of the same nuttery that Griffin's book it. May I be blunt? You conspiracists are all nutbags. As in a burlap sack full of pecan halves. You have make Griffin, Russo and Banister high priests in your religion, a religion based on faith and half truths, rather than on facts, logic and rationalism. I've posted some debunking links up above, go read them if your religion allows you to.
If you notice my sig, you'll see that I support Ron Paul also. But please note that Ron Paul IS NOT a conspiracist. He IS NOT one of you. He is not a Truther, not a tax denier, and not a jekyllite. He wants to get rid of the IRS, NOT because it is an evil conspiracy, but simply because it is evil.
Now Slashdot has been invaded! Is there nowhere I can go to escape these conspiracist nutbags? I will make a feeble attempt to counteract this inane review of an inane book, with a list of various debunking links:
since mild inflation tends to be good for the economy and deflation tends to be disastrous.
Inflation encourages misinvestments, and leads to the boom/bust cycle. It's only better than a mild deflation only if you consider production to be better than consumption. But they're both equally important, so that a mild inflation is no better or worse than a mild deflation. The reason inflation seems good for the economy, is that most government economic indicators are skewed towards production. (Also, Keynes and his disciples spent decades promoting inflation as a cure-all). The horror stories of deflation have all been large deflations, but the large hyperinflations of history have all been just as bad.
In a perfect world, I would prefer a 100% commodity backed currency, as I don't consider a natural and gradual deflation to be a problem. But it ain't going to happen. A good compromise though is Friedman's indexed monetary supply. We need to get human fingers off the knobs of monetary policy.
This book is SOOOOOO much better than Griffin's load of tripe. Yes, Rothbard never passes up an opportunity to promote the gold standard, bash government, and ridicule Friedman, but at least he sticks genuine history, and doesn't make up wild conspiracy tales.
The Federal Reserve is a severly flawed system, but we should attack the reality that it is, and not the fantasies that Griffin imagines.
It depends on how that "or later" clause was phrased. If it uses the standard FSF phrasing, then you can redistribute and modify under the terms of the GPLv3, but... you still don't have permission to relicense. Unless the authors change the license, it will always remain "GPLv2 or later". New code (including significant modifications) can be under GPLv3, but only the original authors can change the licensing of the original code.
Slashdot Mirror
Good lord, what are you doing here? How dare you bring a spark of reason to this ridiculous den of filthy nerds?
I'm slumming.
God this is stupid! This isn't about lack of choice, it's about whiny nerds upset that the world doesn't work the way they want it to. What's the problem now? Linux adoption not fast enough for you? I've got two computers on my desk, neither of which have windows on them, and neither of which EVER had Windows on them. There is no need to "unbundle" Windows from computers because you can already get computers without Windows.
This won't harm Microsoft, it will harm PC manufacturers and resellers, who will bear the entirely of the market disatisfaction with the unbundling. People will still buy Windows, only now they will be paying Microsoft full price for it.
The big hurdle you whiners need to get over is that Windows has 90% market share because people have voluntarily chosen to buy Windows or PC with bundled Windows. It may not be the choice you would have made, but that give you no excuse to government and its police to impose your will on others. IF this is that important to you, get off your high horse and go out and buy a computer without Windows on it. Sheesh.
You mean God is a utilitarian? He can't create something that is without purpose? He can't create a flaw? Everything he does must be understandable by man?
I understand that this is a common viewpoint among creationists, but I was asking about evolutionists. Why are evolutionists always seeking explanation and purpose? I'm not just talking about this article, because I've seen this elsewhere.
Does everything have to have a purpose? That's far too deterministic a philosophy for my tastes. Maybe the appendix doesn't have a purpose, is not part of a plan, has nothing whatsoever to do with survival of the fittest. Maybe it's just a quirk of intestinal development. Maybe its benign enough that there was no reason [sic] to cull it from the gene pool.
So what's your solution? Short of gunpoint, you can't force someone to speak their grandparent's language if they don't want to. Throwing money at the problem won't do anything.
I would propose the opposite solution, and abolish the BIA, incorporate the tribes, give them their reservation land outright, and stop treating them as children needing the white man's care and concern. Then it becomes their choice to pass on their language or not.
Precisely. For most places in Europe, it's only two or three hours drive to another nation speaking another language. But from where I live, it's a full day's drive to Mexico, but who wants to go to Mexico? In the other direction it's two days drive to Canada, where they speak English. (At least four days to get to where they speak French).
That's a separate issue though. You can put a warranty disclaimer, independent of whether you put conditions on distribution, or release it into the public domain.
Without a condition that says not to remove the warranty, you would be setting yourself up for legal disaster. I wish it weren't the case, but that's the reality we live in.
One could also have a licence saying you can do what you like (e.g., WTFPL as the other commenter pointed out).
That is essentially what the BSD, MIT and similar licenses do. One or two clauses saying not to remove the copyright and disclaimer, then the disclaimer. There's also an advantage in using an FSF/OSI approved license.
Because public domain means you can't attach a warranty disclaimer. In today's hyperlitigious society, that's something you need to do. Also, one cannot simply declare their work in the public domain in most countries. You need to get lawyers involved, file papers, etc.
If the second person is being a dick, the third person can go download their own copy. You make it sounds as if there are only two, and forever only be two, users of any given BSD licensed software. The multitude of FreeBSD users would be surprised to hear this.
The FSF and others have repeatedly asserted that the GPL on a library extends to any application that dynamically links to it. That is "use" as in "utilization". Furthermore, the linkage does not actually occur until runtime, which is "use" as in "execution".
Fortunately, most free software libraries are LGPL or freer.
China and India account for billions of people. The US counts for mere millions. Since we offer our excellent graduate level education on the global market, it is not surprising that there are ten foreign students for every one domestic. I see nothing wrong with this.
To a point that is true. But when the rule of law makes the jump from a body of legal principles, to the the arbitrary legislation of legal codes, then lawyers become rent seekers and collude with the legislators. They become a tax on society.
Precisely. If it was more profitable for a company to open source their product, then they will do it. And many have. It is natural for businesses to seek out and exploit advantages, and that is a good thing. They are not charities. Even in a world without copyrights, companies aren't going to provide public access to their repositories.
I am a consulant that works with a lot of companies, and I get to see the source for lots of proprietary software. The idea that they are embarassed by their code is ludicrous. They keep it proprietary for real and perceived trade secrets, don't want brand dilution, don't want to support user modified software, etc.
I've seen proprietary code that was truly embarassing. But I've seen a lot more that was of very high quality and design. Funny thing, I've seen the same range with Open Source software as well!
With the Pentagon strike, I can the rationale for such a plan far more easily than the New York claims, and the evidence, such as it is, appears to support this idea whereas the official story has numerous problems.
The evidence does NOT support that idea, because there is no evidence for a missile. Show me the missile parts. Show me the results of a warhead explosion as opposed to a crash with flammables. Show me the witnesses (full quotes, not out of context). The problem with Truther (and all other conspiracy) theories is that they START from the conclusion then make hand picked evidence fit that conclusion. But the 757 "theory" doesn't do that. It doesn't reject any of the factual evidence. It starts from the existing evidence (airplane parts, witnesses, destruction patterns, hijacked plane, etc) and works to the conclusion that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon.
That's the problem, you're assuming chroot is a jail. They serve two different purposes. If you need a jail, use a jail (or equivalent).
Hundreds of witnesses? Come on now. If you are going to complain about conspiracy theorists spouting wild claims, you had better keep your own boots clean.
So I was off a bit. The point is, there are lots of witnesses. Doing a search I see numbers anywhere from 89 to 149. That's a LOT of witnesses. You can't dismiss them derisively away just because they don't support your predetermined conclusion.
Slackware already has the Platypus, though it hasn't used it in a while. When that stupid flightless waterfowl came along, the platypus got pushed into the corner.
No one has the chinchilla though.
And the Pentagon is another matter. I have yet to see anything which convinces me that a passenger jet struck that building.
So the hundreds of witnesses don't count?
The twists of logic needed to discount the existanct of a 757 is extremely tortuous. Occam's razor isn't infallible, but the grotesque deformations of rationality needed by the Truthers boggles the mind. Why would the perpetrators fly two airplanes into the World Trade Center, but then expend massive amounts of planning and resources to divert and hide the third plane that was supposed to hit the Pentagon? Why load a drone with 757 parts, when you could just fly the 757 into the Pentagon instead? It's thought processes are insane.
Besides, the computer industry shows that gradually *declining* prices is a very robust economic model, excellent in promoting technological development while rapidly increasing the options and wealth of customers.
Of course. But that is not deflation. Do not confuse deflation with a specific drop in prices. Deflation is the shrinkage of the money supply itself.
The fear of the deflation doomsayers is not the drop in prices, but widespread disinvestments. The biggest deflation we've had was at the start of the Great Depression. We were on a nominal gold standard at the time, but it was coupled with easy money fractional reserve banking, leading to inflation. As the banks busted in during the inevitable market correction, the money supply contracted sharply. People took their investments out of the market, and jobs dried up.
Freedom to Fascism is full of the same nuttery that Griffin's book it. May I be blunt? You conspiracists are all nutbags. As in a burlap sack full of pecan halves. You have make Griffin, Russo and Banister high priests in your religion, a religion based on faith and half truths, rather than on facts, logic and rationalism. I've posted some debunking links up above, go read them if your religion allows you to.
Russo keep asking throughout his movie, "show me the law". I went looking for that law, and it took me all of five seconds to find it! Here it is: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html! Here's a link debunking Russo's film: http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm. An even better link debunking the tax deniers, from a solidly libertarian perspective, is this: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0608b.asp.
If you notice my sig, you'll see that I support Ron Paul also. But please note that Ron Paul IS NOT a conspiracist. He IS NOT one of you. He is not a Truther, not a tax denier, and not a jekyllite. He wants to get rid of the IRS, NOT because it is an evil conspiracy, but simply because it is evil.
Now Slashdot has been invaded! Is there nowhere I can go to escape these conspiracist nutbags? I will make a feeble attempt to counteract this inane review of an inane book, with a list of various debunking links:
September 11th
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://www.911myths.com/
http://wtc.nist.gov/
Income Tax and the Federal Reserve
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html
Other
http://www.debunker.com/conspiracy.html
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html
General
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
since mild inflation tends to be good for the economy and deflation tends to be disastrous.
Inflation encourages misinvestments, and leads to the boom/bust cycle. It's only better than a mild deflation only if you consider production to be better than consumption. But they're both equally important, so that a mild inflation is no better or worse than a mild deflation. The reason inflation seems good for the economy, is that most government economic indicators are skewed towards production. (Also, Keynes and his disciples spent decades promoting inflation as a cure-all). The horror stories of deflation have all been large deflations, but the large hyperinflations of history have all been just as bad.
In a perfect world, I would prefer a 100% commodity backed currency, as I don't consider a natural and gradual deflation to be a problem. But it ain't going to happen. A good compromise though is Friedman's indexed monetary supply. We need to get human fingers off the knobs of monetary policy.
This book is SOOOOOO much better than Griffin's load of tripe. Yes, Rothbard never passes up an opportunity to promote the gold standard, bash government, and ridicule Friedman, but at least he sticks genuine history, and doesn't make up wild conspiracy tales.
The Federal Reserve is a severly flawed system, but we should attack the reality that it is, and not the fantasies that Griffin imagines.
It depends on how that "or later" clause was phrased. If it uses the standard FSF phrasing, then you can redistribute and modify under the terms of the GPLv3, but... you still don't have permission to relicense. Unless the authors change the license, it will always remain "GPLv2 or later". New code (including significant modifications) can be under GPLv3, but only the original authors can change the licensing of the original code.