I guess the kernel source code and 100 pages bills are the same in this aspect. You don't need to know every little regulation in every field and in every part of the process. You have elected representatives who have to deal with complex legal issues. The 1000 pages are simply not relevant to you, but you should if you get health coverage and who has to pay for it. It is relevant for you that there is no "death panel". It is relevant for you if you can go to a doctor of your choice.
I'm not a citizen in the US, but in many countries bills ake allready like patches.
If you want to change the law "Everybody must pay one dollar" to "Everybody must pay two dollars" you will not pass the whole law again, you will pass another bill that says that "one dollar" is replaces by "two dollars".
This way, the bills get huge - but the actual law is far less voluminous.
So instead what winds up happening is the men and women voting for the law don't understand the law themselves.
That is an issue: Law makers habe to understand the decisions they are making. Of course not everybody has the knowledge to evaluate evry single consequence of every law, but the representatives have to keep the control.
A few thousand people in the whole world can really understand the source code of the linux kernel. Why would Linus make it so complicated? Is this "openness" just another prank?
No, some things are complex. To make laws is a highly complex issue, Of course, there are many problems with the processes of law making - but just simplyfying the language would not do any good.
I don't get your point. Confusing legal language does not get more usefull or logical when you put them in SVN.
Of cource: SVN - or probably another solution better suited for the task - could help to track changes over time - but this not the problem of the health care reform bills, is it?
A system that could capture the way humans interact with forms algorithmically could eventually relieve humans of the need to prove anything altogether.'
This system could also reproduce human interactions. So it's only time until this behavourial approach stops working.
BTW: I don't want slashdot to check how I scroll the page, nor is my typing and retyping business of anybody but me. Imagine you can't comment anywhere because you block Google Analytics.
I guess he just misinterpreted the phone conversation. It wouldn't make much sense to put the termination in writing and say something else. It makes much sense that the hosting company assured him that he had three months time to transfer his domains.
Wikileaks has published a new press release about the alleged censorship. After I read the details I fully understand why the contract had been terminated.
In December Reppe tried to transfer bnd.de - the domain of the federal intelligence agency Bundesnachrichtendienst - to his account. To do that he had to assure that he was the rightful owner of bnd.de. The provider stopped the transition and terminated the contract with Reppe with 3 months notice.
Of course it is legal to sell OpenOffice - why shouldn't it be? You can bundle it with Templates, you can add a better manual, you can compile an version for a new OS...
But it is illegal to trick users to "buy". It's not an license issue, it's one of consumer protection or criminal prosecution.
To cut this discussion short: Apple has no non-proprietary agenda. You believe they don't support Flash because Flash is bad, I believe Flash is an competitor for iTunes store.
In this case they're "pushing them" indirectly by ignoring the proprietary ones.
"One", not "ones". They support AAC, they support Exchange, they support Microsoft document formats. All proprietary techniques that don't compete with Apple are welcome. If Apple had a non-proprietary agenda, iPods would play OggVorbis instead of audible files. But they don't.
And iPod and iPhone have plenty ressources for Flash.
In this case they're "pushing them" indirectly by ignoring the proprietary ones.
"One", not "ones". They support AAC, they support Exchange, they support Microsoft document formats. All proprietary techniques that don't compete with Apple are welcome. And iPod and iPhone have plenty ressources for Flash.
If Apple had a non-proprietary agenda, iPods would play OggVorbis instead of audible files. But they don't.
The message is too abstract. Give the people some better examples. iPod and iTunes do not support flash - why should I care?
It's easy: with flash support you could watch The Daily Show and the Daily Show for free, with iTunes you have to pay for it - if you can watch it at all.
I have tested a proxy from UK. The article returned an empty page, but the image could be accessed directly without any problem. Other report problems with the image and the article, costumers of one provider get an actual error message with an explanation why a page was blocked.
Mr Heilmann didn't have a problem with Wikipedia publishing information on his work for the former Stasi. It's one of few facts in the article he does not complain about. He had some problems with enemies in his own party and with the yellow press. And he insists he had never interrupted his university education.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess the kernel source code and 100 pages bills are the same in this aspect. You don't need to know every little regulation in every field and in every part of the process. You have elected representatives who have to deal with complex legal issues. The 1000 pages are simply not relevant to you, but you should if you get health coverage and who has to pay for it. It is relevant for you that there is no "death panel". It is relevant for you if you can go to a doctor of your choice.
I'm not a citizen in the US, but in many countries bills ake allready like patches.
If you want to change the law "Everybody must pay one dollar" to "Everybody must pay two dollars" you will not pass the whole law again, you will pass another bill that says that "one dollar" is replaces by "two dollars".
This way, the bills get huge - but the actual law is far less voluminous.
That is an issue: Law makers habe to understand the decisions they are making. Of course not everybody has the knowledge to evaluate evry single consequence of every law, but the representatives have to keep the control.
A few thousand people in the whole world can really understand the source code of the linux kernel. Why would Linus make it so complicated? Is this "openness" just another prank? No, some things are complex. To make laws is a highly complex issue, Of course, there are many problems with the processes of law making - but just simplyfying the language would not do any good.
E.g. with "death panels"?
I don't get your point. Confusing legal language does not get more usefull or logical when you put them in SVN. Of cource: SVN - or probably another solution better suited for the task - could help to track changes over time - but this not the problem of the health care reform bills, is it?
XKCD has already a store with some very neat items. But unfortunately you have to become a PayPal costumer to get these. Very unfortunate.
The Big One sponsored by mysterious billionaires? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090264/
This system could also reproduce human interactions. So it's only time until this behavourial approach stops working.
BTW: I don't want slashdot to check how I scroll the page, nor is my typing and retyping business of anybody but me. Imagine you can't comment anywhere because you block Google Analytics.
Can anybody here confirm the story? What about the other four providers that are mentioned on the IWF site?
This is not what happened. Reppe still owns the domain. He has only to find a new provider.
How exactly is "fucking with the system" different from "making a point"?
I guess he just misinterpreted the phone conversation. It wouldn't make much sense to put the termination in writing and say something else. It makes much sense that the hosting company assured him that he had three months time to transfer his domains.
Wikileaks has published a new press release about the alleged censorship. After I read the details I fully understand why the contract had been terminated.
In December Reppe tried to transfer bnd.de - the domain of the federal intelligence agency Bundesnachrichtendienst - to his account. To do that he had to assure that he was the rightful owner of bnd.de. The provider stopped the transition and terminated the contract with Reppe with 3 months notice.
Of course it is legal to sell OpenOffice - why shouldn't it be? You can bundle it with Templates, you can add a better manual, you can compile an version for a new OS... But it is illegal to trick users to "buy". It's not an license issue, it's one of consumer protection or criminal prosecution.
Sorry, but you obviously have lost perspective what this discussion was about.
To cut this discussion short: Apple has no non-proprietary agenda. You believe they don't support Flash because Flash is bad, I believe Flash is an competitor for iTunes store.
"One", not "ones". They support AAC, they support Exchange, they support Microsoft document formats. All proprietary techniques that don't compete with Apple are welcome. If Apple had a non-proprietary agenda, iPods would play OggVorbis instead of audible files. But they don't.
And iPod and iPhone have plenty ressources for Flash.
In this case they're "pushing them" indirectly by ignoring the proprietary ones. "One", not "ones". They support AAC, they support Exchange, they support Microsoft document formats. All proprietary techniques that don't compete with Apple are welcome. And iPod and iPhone have plenty ressources for Flash. If Apple had a non-proprietary agenda, iPods would play OggVorbis instead of audible files. But they don't.
Apple uses standards - but when did they ever push them? In fact Apple likes proprietary techniques if they can turn them to profit. Very much.
Why makes you think you could beat your bosses if they played your games?
The message is too abstract. Give the people some better examples. iPod and iTunes do not support flash - why should I care?
It's easy: with flash support you could watch The Daily Show and the Daily Show for free, with iTunes you have to pay for it - if you can watch it at all.
I have tested a proxy from UK. The article returned an empty page, but the image could be accessed directly without any problem. Other report problems with the image and the article, costumers of one provider get an actual error message with an explanation why a page was blocked.
UK users, please tell us what you can see.
Why don't Americans use wire transfer more often? In Europe it is a fast and relatively safe method.
Mr Heilmann didn't have a problem with Wikipedia publishing information on his work for the former Stasi. It's one of few facts in the article he does not complain about. He had some problems with enemies in his own party and with the yellow press. And he insists he had never interrupted his university education.