The European Patent Office has already decided that on its own, by granting thousands of software patents, openly disregarding the law (which says software is unpatentable). If you believe that "neutral" software freedom advocates have any real power to influence governments to act against the interests of capital, you're naive.
So because one action operated outside of the law, we should give up on trying to influence the law. OK, I get where you are coming from now and understand why you are left wing.
On this I agree with you. If you only care about the number of Linux installs or some similar metric, appearing neutral will help. But I doubt that's all Stallman is after.
The number of Linux installs or other metrics would be ancillary. Ideally if FOSS was catching on in government, those numbers would be up. That would be a sign of success not success in and of itself.
What do you suppose he should do? Refrain from talking about politics? That's also a statement - an endorsement of the status quo. Politics just isn't a private matter, and treating it like one doesn't make you "ideology-free". It just means you're following the neoliberal ideology of pretending not to have one.
I suggest he makes a comment of some sort that clearly delineates which comments and rantings is for the furtherance of FOSS and which are his personal politics so as not to drag the entire FOSS community down with him. If there was a bright line saying this is what Stallman thinks about Foss and this is what he thinks about other things, I doubt we would be having this conversation.
How is the GDP going to rise if people have no money to spend? What's left of the middle class is going to get fucked.
lol.. and the alternative is to tax the people who can invest in jobs. Your right, the middle class is getting fucked, but they seem to have largely consented to it with promises
You obviously do not know what science is. Science is not religion and does not say anything to religion because religion is full of supernatural claims that Science cannot prove or disprove.
Anyone who truly knows what science is would be indifferent about religion. They simply wouldn't care about it as it does not effect science at all.
I don't have to prove anything exists. I can sit back and point out how the silly bullshit people play will come back to hurt them.
Religion has been around a lot longer then science so the onus is actually on you to prove it isn't true. Of course science has absolutely no ability to prove supernatural claims or disprove them for that matter so you cannot do it. So go around spouting shit about the religious then come on back and whine some more when they gand up to do something you don't like.
Like I said, I am afraid that they will use this to say NASA is evil and lobby against government spending on it. Go ahead and keep trying to piss people off then ask for their help.
Maybe Bill Nye the science guy would have more of an audience if he didn't talk about creationism and religious doctrine under the guise of science and stuck with science.
I'm afraid this might backfire with religious groups now associating NASA with anti-religion because of his earlier comments and create a backlash against the government wasting money on NASA.
All you have to do is convince them that the 72 virgins are perpetual virgins meaning they can never have sex with them. It would be in reality like having 72 twelve year old sisters constantly around.
Stallman doesn't care as much about Open Source as he does about Free Software. The differences can sometimes seem small, but I think the latter is inherently political, as is "hacker culture" in general.
The comments in question have little to do with free software though. Do you think it is appropriate to conflate free software with Gun rights or abortion?
As a "left wing nutter", I wouldn't have too much hope of a right wing government doing much of anything that benefits common (working class) people. I think trying to get them to pass "OSS-friendly" laws would be a futile endeavour.
Then you would be a left wing moron. This isn't just about passing laws to aid or help OSS. It's about limiting damage other laws might cause with it. It is about the government using it not only for the benefits of owning your own data but for the promotion and development of it. So tell me, if Europe decided that software patents were a good thing and some right wing governments wanted to make it law, would the opinion of software enthusiasts and advocates have more impact in this decision or would the opinion of left wing organizations crying about software freedom? If governments were deciding to change their software, would FOSS be considered when it is seen as a political opposition group? As uncomfortable as it may be for you, the seemingly neutral advocates and enthusiasts would carry more weight in these decisions then groups of political opposition who are also interested in software.
Right now, anyone can be involved with OSS-FOSS regardless of their political leanings. If it becomes a political entity outside of what effects and impacts it, then only expect those jaded with the same outside beliefs to be active. It is not a good thing at all for FOSS or Linux.
Of course. But he seemed to suggest that since political topics have (in his opinion) nothing to do with Free Software, Stallman shouldn't talk about them. This just rubbed me the wrong way, similar to how whenever Chomsky says something political, there are those who claim that since his most well-known works are in linguistics, he should shut up because he's not "qualified" to talk about politics.
It is in my opinion that he is free to say what he thinks. The world is not some place where someone can speak their mind and someone else cannot because you or anyone else agrees with one or the other opinion. If scolding Stallman is appropriate to him because of what he believes in, then it is just as appropriate as you or me scolding him or whoever in the future. However, I think the op has a little more legitimacy because Stallman is seen as a leader in the community that he participates in and should have more of an opportunity to make his case for or against that leader.
I took the op's statement to mean more that Stallman should not be conflating FOSS with outside political ideas like Gun control and so on. That has no place in in FOSS in my opinion. But if the "leaders" want to entangle FOSS with politics like that, they better be ready to accept the consequences of being relegated to just another political mouth piece when something important comes up.
Actually, it would probably be more efficient to use those sources to pump air or create hydrogen peroxide to store the energy and be used as demand sources also.
You are not really corrected. The definition of a trip is from one address to another. If you drove to the bank, then to the movies, perhaps dinner out, and a stop at the store on the way home, it would count as 5 trips. I would consider it as one trip. Using the average of 10 miles, it could be about 50 miles in reality.
Just yesterday, I drove to my brothers (12 miles), picked him up and drove to a business to pay a bill (9 miles) then we got lunch, (4 miles), went into town to see some politicians think out loud (8 miles), stopped at a store to look at something and purchase something else (6 miles) then I dropped my brother back off, (3 miles) and went home (12 miles). That's 54 miles in one round trip for me- Or according to the energy.gov site, 7 tips averaging 10 miles or less.
California also has a unique situation where it is blocked to the east by a mountain range that causes a lot of the smog and pollution to linger around and become more concentrated and more noticeable. If shifting pollution to the other side of the mountains by generating electricity there for use within the state eliminates a portion of this pollution for transportation, then it can have a positive impact on the health and well being of inhabitants without transferring the same degree of negative health effect out because it isn't as concentrated.
No one is against women using birth control except some of the churches for religious reasons. Romney in this context is against taxing someone and handing it to the woman- IE government provided birth control with no medical necessity.
It is about an unelected panel of people summarily declaring that religious organizations have to violate their own doctrine because the government all the sudden decided the first amendment means nothing and those organizations have to supply birth control and abortions to people against their religious beliefs (This has since been reverses because of the backlash, but there are still quite a few religious organizations currently suing the government over First amendment violations).
Or are you saying that it is a woman's right to tax me and anyone else so they can have sex with no consequences? And before you answer that, remember, you are inviting the government into your bedroom when you demand they pay for what you do in there. Sex has been a private issue for most of the country's life. Even the anti sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional because of this.
I think that is the problem with these anointed leaders of Linux and Free Software espousing political commentary not related to Linux and Free Software. It makes it appear as if they are trying to include the people who support them and their ideals as support for the political externalizations.
Of course there are people like you who without knowing how qualified he is with something outside Linux and Free Software who hang on his words. But there are people who support the opposite of what Stallman is saying, people who are friendly to all or part of ALEC's agenda, who see his comments as offensive. There are people who have an entire different host of political ideals who support free software and should not be put in a position (at least in appearance if not directly by association) because of the stature of the leaders and their contradictory positions in politics.
Linux and Free Software should only be politicized to the point policy law impacts it. Any more then that and not only will we find it ineffectual to appose policy because one side will see Linux and Free Software as a front group for another side of politics, but it can be damaging when groups purposely ignore Linux and Free Software in policy and law or worse yet, ignore negative impacts it will have because- after all, they are just a front group some politician's ideology.
If you want to politicize Linux and Open Source Software, go right ahead. But there are many downsides to it that shouldn't be involved with software or open source. If we get a right wing government anywhere in the world, should they automatically ignore the concerns of OSS because it is seen as a front group for left wing nutters?
As for qualifications, I would suggest the same thing qualifies him to speak out against stallman entangling political views with OSS as does qualify you to speak out against him for doing it. Stallman is not on some pedestal that make him irreproachable or uniquely off limits to criticism for his comments or stances.
The bell 407 in the pic is said to cost 1.5 mil outfitted and ready for service. I doubt they go for the luxury copter but they probably do look for the air duty equivalent of a surplus military copter with some comforts not generally involved in a military helicopter like a cushioned seat. Helicopters used to be provided relatively cheap on a surplus offering from the military. I guess after 9/11, demand for them shot past the availability of the surplus crafts and private suppliers started offering specially outfitted helicopters for law enforcement purposed.
If you truly believe that, you are stupid on the facts. That's ok, All you need to do is look at them and you can correct that problem. The only so called woman's rights that Romney and Co appose is abortion and feds funding birth control with tax payer money. You may say- But But But they don't like Planned parenthood, And you would be correct for those same reasons- birth control and abortions. They have absolutely no problem with the breast exams and other services Planned Parenthood operate.
But please, do not take my word for it, go look it up yourself. Go look it up and see what they say about it. The come back and tell me it's all about something else. If it wasn't about those things and an attempt to conceal it, you or whoever would have listed them because of how egregious and damaging to the conscious they would be. The fact is, they are lumped in as woman's rights to hide it because people are largely set in thier division on those issues and you can't gain any more ground on them.
There will likely be a silent switch or some automated booting switch built in for re-provisioning server systems that need to come back up without user intervention.
However, I'm not sure that this secure boot and signing will be able to completely rule out boot sector viruses. If it can get into memory, it can manipulate about anything after that. I imagine something like this might be adapted. But i'm not a coding guru so I could be wrong. I just don't trust microsoft enough to not open a gaping hole somewhere right after the boot loader.
The DMCA is not intended as a method of copyright protection, it is intended as a tool to facilitate the right holder's claims against something copyrighted while offering protections for the service provider or network carrier from becoming liable in the process.
The DMCA has been widely abused in this regard and it is on the surface or in appearance, a method of enforcing a copyright. However, it was supposed to only be a shelter for innocent third parties from liability while a copyright owner and accused infringing party hammered and battled it out. The fact that it is being thrown at virtually everything to see what it sticks on, and it's so sticky it sticks to everything- sort of shows the abuse that has been taken with it.
This lawsuit stems from before there was ever automated systems in wide spread use. If they prevail on any part of it, it should have clear implications for the automated systems. If for instance, they uphold the consideration of fair use, the automated systems will have to forward the complaint to an actual person who makes that determination before any DMCA take down notice is issued.
On the other hand, it might not have any effect on services like YouTube who employ their own automated systems. But then again, YouTube wouldn't be covered under the DMCA's exception from liability either when they do it themselves. They would be stuck with the wording of their terms of service which may or may not stand on it's own in court.
I think by "found" he means someone was there purposely with the intent of video taping in case something odd happened that could be taken advantage of.
Of course people make recordings of others all the time without their knowledge and post it on youtube. Why should this be any different just because it was a high dollar fund raiser where Romney was expected to lay out his campaign strategy in order to convince rich people to give him gobs of money.. I mean a mole in the organization feeding confidential information back to the democrats is too water-gatish to be real.
lol.. I didn't say anything about me liking or disliking abortions. I said claiming it as woman's rights is only a ploy to hide the fact it is about abortions and government condoms or other birth control. In other words, by using the language used, someone is trying to dupe the public into believing something by hiding what the issues really are.
Especially when that bipartisanship ended up in laws ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.
Whatever you think of the party, they are die hard supporters of the constitution and only tend to violate it when they can somehow see it as not in violation. They couldn't seem to get around that with McCain's advocacy.
I think you are wrong about the stupid part. He called Biden on a couple lies tonight. Well, lies might be an overstatement, his memory might just be failing him in his old age, perhaps incorrectness might be a better term.
As for in control, I doubt it would be any worse then what we have already seen.
lol.. Did you just have to push something in there because you thought I bashed your side or something? I'm not going to bother getting into what woman's rights in this context actually are because you know as well as I do, framing it as woman's rights is only a ploy to make it sound less ugly then killing your unborn baby or taking money from someone to support their sex habits by providing birth control.
But the core would have likely stayed home so there would have been little to no difference.
Republicans are actually stupid enough to vote third party or stay home and not vote to prove a point. That's why the candidates pander to the extremes of the party so much.
Biden is just an grumpy old man who is bitter because the world is changing around him. Or at least that is what he appeared like in this debate. It sounded like he was trying to yell or scold someone during his rebuts. I was waiting for a get off my lawn comment to come out.
Slashdot Mirror
So because one action operated outside of the law, we should give up on trying to influence the law. OK, I get where you are coming from now and understand why you are left wing.
The number of Linux installs or other metrics would be ancillary. Ideally if FOSS was catching on in government, those numbers would be up. That would be a sign of success not success in and of itself.
I suggest he makes a comment of some sort that clearly delineates which comments and rantings is for the furtherance of FOSS and which are his personal politics so as not to drag the entire FOSS community down with him. If there was a bright line saying this is what Stallman thinks about Foss and this is what he thinks about other things, I doubt we would be having this conversation.
lol.. and the alternative is to tax the people who can invest in jobs. Your right, the middle class is getting fucked, but they seem to have largely consented to it with promises
You obviously do not know what science is. Science is not religion and does not say anything to religion because religion is full of supernatural claims that Science cannot prove or disprove.
Anyone who truly knows what science is would be indifferent about religion. They simply wouldn't care about it as it does not effect science at all.
I don't have to prove anything exists. I can sit back and point out how the silly bullshit people play will come back to hurt them.
Religion has been around a lot longer then science so the onus is actually on you to prove it isn't true. Of course science has absolutely no ability to prove supernatural claims or disprove them for that matter so you cannot do it. So go around spouting shit about the religious then come on back and whine some more when they gand up to do something you don't like.
Like I said, I am afraid that they will use this to say NASA is evil and lobby against government spending on it. Go ahead and keep trying to piss people off then ask for their help.
Maybe Bill Nye the science guy would have more of an audience if he didn't talk about creationism and religious doctrine under the guise of science and stuck with science.
I'm afraid this might backfire with religious groups now associating NASA with anti-religion because of his earlier comments and create a backlash against the government wasting money on NASA.
All you have to do is convince them that the 72 virgins are perpetual virgins meaning they can never have sex with them. It would be in reality like having 72 twelve year old sisters constantly around.
The comments in question have little to do with free software though. Do you think it is appropriate to conflate free software with Gun rights or abortion?
Then you would be a left wing moron. This isn't just about passing laws to aid or help OSS. It's about limiting damage other laws might cause with it. It is about the government using it not only for the benefits of owning your own data but for the promotion and development of it. So tell me, if Europe decided that software patents were a good thing and some right wing governments wanted to make it law, would the opinion of software enthusiasts and advocates have more impact in this decision or would the opinion of left wing organizations crying about software freedom? If governments were deciding to change their software, would FOSS be considered when it is seen as a political opposition group? As uncomfortable as it may be for you, the seemingly neutral advocates and enthusiasts would carry more weight in these decisions then groups of political opposition who are also interested in software.
Right now, anyone can be involved with OSS-FOSS regardless of their political leanings. If it becomes a political entity outside of what effects and impacts it, then only expect those jaded with the same outside beliefs to be active. It is not a good thing at all for FOSS or Linux.
It is in my opinion that he is free to say what he thinks. The world is not some place where someone can speak their mind and someone else cannot because you or anyone else agrees with one or the other opinion. If scolding Stallman is appropriate to him because of what he believes in, then it is just as appropriate as you or me scolding him or whoever in the future. However, I think the op has a little more legitimacy because Stallman is seen as a leader in the community that he participates in and should have more of an opportunity to make his case for or against that leader.
I took the op's statement to mean more that Stallman should not be conflating FOSS with outside political ideas like Gun control and so on. That has no place in in FOSS in my opinion. But if the "leaders" want to entangle FOSS with politics like that, they better be ready to accept the consequences of being relegated to just another political mouth piece when something important comes up.
Actually, it would probably be more efficient to use those sources to pump air or create hydrogen peroxide to store the energy and be used as demand sources also.
You are not really corrected. The definition of a trip is from one address to another. If you drove to the bank, then to the movies, perhaps dinner out, and a stop at the store on the way home, it would count as 5 trips. I would consider it as one trip. Using the average of 10 miles, it could be about 50 miles in reality.
Just yesterday, I drove to my brothers (12 miles), picked him up and drove to a business to pay a bill (9 miles) then we got lunch, (4 miles), went into town to see some politicians think out loud (8 miles), stopped at a store to look at something and purchase something else (6 miles) then I dropped my brother back off, (3 miles) and went home (12 miles). That's 54 miles in one round trip for me- Or according to the energy.gov site, 7 tips averaging 10 miles or less.
California also has a unique situation where it is blocked to the east by a mountain range that causes a lot of the smog and pollution to linger around and become more concentrated and more noticeable. If shifting pollution to the other side of the mountains by generating electricity there for use within the state eliminates a portion of this pollution for transportation, then it can have a positive impact on the health and well being of inhabitants without transferring the same degree of negative health effect out because it isn't as concentrated.
No one is against women using birth control except some of the churches for religious reasons. Romney in this context is against taxing someone and handing it to the woman- IE government provided birth control with no medical necessity.
It is about an unelected panel of people summarily declaring that religious organizations have to violate their own doctrine because the government all the sudden decided the first amendment means nothing and those organizations have to supply birth control and abortions to people against their religious beliefs (This has since been reverses because of the backlash, but there are still quite a few religious organizations currently suing the government over First amendment violations).
Or are you saying that it is a woman's right to tax me and anyone else so they can have sex with no consequences? And before you answer that, remember, you are inviting the government into your bedroom when you demand they pay for what you do in there. Sex has been a private issue for most of the country's life. Even the anti sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional because of this.
I think that is the problem with these anointed leaders of Linux and Free Software espousing political commentary not related to Linux and Free Software. It makes it appear as if they are trying to include the people who support them and their ideals as support for the political externalizations.
Of course there are people like you who without knowing how qualified he is with something outside Linux and Free Software who hang on his words. But there are people who support the opposite of what Stallman is saying, people who are friendly to all or part of ALEC's agenda, who see his comments as offensive. There are people who have an entire different host of political ideals who support free software and should not be put in a position (at least in appearance if not directly by association) because of the stature of the leaders and their contradictory positions in politics.
Linux and Free Software should only be politicized to the point policy law impacts it. Any more then that and not only will we find it ineffectual to appose policy because one side will see Linux and Free Software as a front group for another side of politics, but it can be damaging when groups purposely ignore Linux and Free Software in policy and law or worse yet, ignore negative impacts it will have because- after all, they are just a front group some politician's ideology.
If you want to politicize Linux and Open Source Software, go right ahead. But there are many downsides to it that shouldn't be involved with software or open source. If we get a right wing government anywhere in the world, should they automatically ignore the concerns of OSS because it is seen as a front group for left wing nutters?
As for qualifications, I would suggest the same thing qualifies him to speak out against stallman entangling political views with OSS as does qualify you to speak out against him for doing it. Stallman is not on some pedestal that make him irreproachable or uniquely off limits to criticism for his comments or stances.
I don't know if it is because of corrupt assholes, but this article here seems to show quite a bit more when completely outfitted for the police.
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/vehicles/articles/1359987-Police-helicopters-becoming-commonplace/
The bell 407 in the pic is said to cost 1.5 mil outfitted and ready for service. I doubt they go for the luxury copter but they probably do look for the air duty equivalent of a surplus military copter with some comforts not generally involved in a military helicopter like a cushioned seat. Helicopters used to be provided relatively cheap on a surplus offering from the military. I guess after 9/11, demand for them shot past the availability of the surplus crafts and private suppliers started offering specially outfitted helicopters for law enforcement purposed.
If you truly believe that, you are stupid on the facts. That's ok, All you need to do is look at them and you can correct that problem. The only so called woman's rights that Romney and Co appose is abortion and feds funding birth control with tax payer money. You may say- But But But they don't like Planned parenthood, And you would be correct for those same reasons- birth control and abortions. They have absolutely no problem with the breast exams and other services Planned Parenthood operate.
But please, do not take my word for it, go look it up yourself. Go look it up and see what they say about it. The come back and tell me it's all about something else. If it wasn't about those things and an attempt to conceal it, you or whoever would have listed them because of how egregious and damaging to the conscious they would be. The fact is, they are lumped in as woman's rights to hide it because people are largely set in thier division on those issues and you can't gain any more ground on them.
There will likely be a silent switch or some automated booting switch built in for re-provisioning server systems that need to come back up without user intervention.
However, I'm not sure that this secure boot and signing will be able to completely rule out boot sector viruses. If it can get into memory, it can manipulate about anything after that. I imagine something like this might be adapted. But i'm not a coding guru so I could be wrong. I just don't trust microsoft enough to not open a gaping hole somewhere right after the boot loader.
http://www.gfi.com/blog/how-the-tdl4-rootkit-gets-around-driver-signing-policy-on-a-64-bit-machine/
The DMCA is not intended as a method of copyright protection, it is intended as a tool to facilitate the right holder's claims against something copyrighted while offering protections for the service provider or network carrier from becoming liable in the process.
The DMCA has been widely abused in this regard and it is on the surface or in appearance, a method of enforcing a copyright. However, it was supposed to only be a shelter for innocent third parties from liability while a copyright owner and accused infringing party hammered and battled it out. The fact that it is being thrown at virtually everything to see what it sticks on, and it's so sticky it sticks to everything- sort of shows the abuse that has been taken with it.
This lawsuit stems from before there was ever automated systems in wide spread use. If they prevail on any part of it, it should have clear implications for the automated systems. If for instance, they uphold the consideration of fair use, the automated systems will have to forward the complaint to an actual person who makes that determination before any DMCA take down notice is issued.
On the other hand, it might not have any effect on services like YouTube who employ their own automated systems. But then again, YouTube wouldn't be covered under the DMCA's exception from liability either when they do it themselves. They would be stuck with the wording of their terms of service which may or may not stand on it's own in court.
I think by "found" he means someone was there purposely with the intent of video taping in case something odd happened that could be taken advantage of.
Of course people make recordings of others all the time without their knowledge and post it on youtube. Why should this be any different just because it was a high dollar fund raiser where Romney was expected to lay out his campaign strategy in order to convince rich people to give him gobs of money.. I mean a mole in the organization feeding confidential information back to the democrats is too water-gatish to be real.
lol.. I didn't say anything about me liking or disliking abortions. I said claiming it as woman's rights is only a ploy to hide the fact it is about abortions and government condoms or other birth control. In other words, by using the language used, someone is trying to dupe the public into believing something by hiding what the issues really are.
Especially when that bipartisanship ended up in laws ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.
Whatever you think of the party, they are die hard supporters of the constitution and only tend to violate it when they can somehow see it as not in violation. They couldn't seem to get around that with McCain's advocacy.
I think you are wrong about the stupid part. He called Biden on a couple lies tonight. Well, lies might be an overstatement, his memory might just be failing him in his old age, perhaps incorrectness might be a better term.
As for in control, I doubt it would be any worse then what we have already seen.
lol.. Did you just have to push something in there because you thought I bashed your side or something? I'm not going to bother getting into what woman's rights in this context actually are because you know as well as I do, framing it as woman's rights is only a ploy to make it sound less ugly then killing your unborn baby or taking money from someone to support their sex habits by providing birth control.
But the core would have likely stayed home so there would have been little to no difference.
Republicans are actually stupid enough to vote third party or stay home and not vote to prove a point. That's why the candidates pander to the extremes of the party so much.
Biden is just an grumpy old man who is bitter because the world is changing around him. Or at least that is what he appeared like in this debate. It sounded like he was trying to yell or scold someone during his rebuts. I was waiting for a get off my lawn comment to come out.