You can cause all of those too if you're worried about your safety, even if that worry is unfounded. Your body will do what your mind wants, even if its not healthy.
Um, see that's where you're wrong. Invading Iraq and being involved in Vietnam are NOT justifable. We really didn't have any good reason to be in either of those places.
If you don't mind equating freedom with slavery, then sure.
Nice try, but that's not how its working. If you want to make use of GPL code, you are then restricted to GPLing your software. Please explain how that's a choice for the developer.
In a free society, no one has the freedom to own slaves. In a free software environment, no one has the right to restrict other's use of software.
Actually I'd think in a totally free society you COULD sell yourself into slavery if you choose to do so. In your free software environment though you're taking away developers freedom if they choose to use GPL code. The result is that some developers end up re-inventing the wheel.
It is fundamentally a different model from either capitalism or socialism, because both assume limited resources and a means to fairly distribute them. Software, and knowledge in general, is fundamentally different. Material resourses, at the lowest level matter and energy, are fundamentally limited to at best a constant (so far as we know). Material resources must be divided between entities in some way. On the other hand, information is limited only by the material available to encode it. There is an infinite supply of information, and it is virtually free to replicate and create. While material resorces must be divided up for the greatest good, information must be muliplied out for the greatest good. Everyone should have the best information available, since that translates into the highest possibly efficiency for use of material resources, effectively maximizing the material resources available.
The code itself can be copied infinitely, sure. Does that mean the time I spent in creating it is worthless? I do all the work, I put in the effort and investment, and you come along and say 'thanks, well take that!' and walk off. Wow, do I feel appreciated. Next time instead of writing code to the benefit of everyone, I guess I'll go build houses for a living..
If you don't agree, too bad. In my opinion, you're outnumbered by those who realize that sharing knowledge openly will maximize the good in our universe. Don't worry, the free sharing of information won't restrict your ability to discover and invent things, so unless you have a vested interest in controlling others for your own benefit, nothing will change to your disadvantage.
No, I think you're clearly in the minority. Sharing knowledge is helpful yes, but at the end of the day people need motivation to invest the time and effort required to create great software. How can I spend time creating something good if I'm worried about paying for my house? The answer is that I likely won't.
Oh, and if you think I'm making this up, you need to open your eyes. A very select few open source projects are successful; most end in failure though. THAT's the reality of the "community" you wish to build. People that no longer want to create software.
Maybe some of us simply hate the web clients for the free emails? I have a forwarder account so leaving service isn't a problem, and if Adelphia tried this, it WOULD prompt me to leave. Well, who am I kidding? I'm leaving anyone, just as soon as the city rolls out the fiber in my neighborhood. Good bye high prices and crappy service!
Thanks for backing me up on that one. The other side is that even when it does get 7 feet of snow, they're actually really damn good at removing it, and life goes on more or less unaffected.
They rated geography as important, and gave RIT a one. Then they slam Rochester, saying there's nothing to do? Not true.. there's plenty of things to do in Rochester. Even better, its not far from Geneseo. Some of us actually prefer Rochester's climate over Austins or Tampas!
I agree. I loved my time at RIT. The five years went all too quickly. Alas, I was off campus and graduated before they moved to the OC3.
FWIW, as long as you do keep your grades up, you shouldn't have problems landing a job (well, assuming CS anyway). I never heard of RIT before my friend told me about it, but plenty of people know the name and it has a good reputation... pretty much every interviewer I've talked to is aware of it.
I have to agree with you. I went to RIT because it seemed like a 'smart' campus that would have a lot of people I'd get a long with. Had I gone to something like Kutstown, I think I would have hated college, because I never really cared for the joke type people, and it seemed like socially that college would have been much more like HS.
Even though it's technically possible, it takes the actual clerk that has disdain for the company to actually let it happen.
Personally I think this is where the government could do some good by putting a regulation in place. This would futher force cell providers to compete more, since you don't lose the inventment of your phone. Phone prices would also likely drop, as you can now use some phones that were not available before on say Verizon.
I think prices are kept artifically high now, just so they can give you 'rebates' to entice you to sign up.
Even when they don't release it publically, they lack both the competence or will to keep it to themselves. I remember, ten years ago, an acquaintance who taunted a friend with private medical information. She had been a clerk for a debt collection agency and used her access to look up all of her friends. The big dumb companies share things they should not and don't keep tabs on it. Imagine what clerks at ChoicePoint could do, then think of how owned their little windoze terminals are. There's not much real privacy left anymore.
If this is true, and in the US, your friend can sue and easily win as sharing medical data is a HIPPA violation, unless she consented. I believe even then however, the requesing party has to have a ligitimate reason for the medical data; they can't just ask for it for the hell of it.
It depends on the carrier. For example, I had a nokia that COULD have worked with Virgin Mobile, but they were unwilling to let anything but the phones they sold on their network.
Its too bad; I like the razr I have now, but the nokia was an awesome phone as well and i wouldn't mind using it either.
They got screwed. It sucks. But at least it's nothing personal.
That doesn't help you feel any better though. You're still left with a feeling of failure. In my case, the parent company shut the entire company down. Fortunately, I had only just started, and had plenty of good things on my resume (and current). Others haven't been so fortunte.
Well since everyone agrees addiction is all in the mind already I wouldn't call it revolutionary.
Take, for instance, all the people that do drugs, have sex or gamble that don't have any problem with it and can stop any time they want. For example, my wife, who decided to quit smoking, and simply stopped. No withdrawl symptoms or anything.
This form of cognitive dissonance is frightening: It is alright for a group we call The State (a sovereign entity) to tell someone (another sovereign entity) to "kill that man over there" (in war or sentence of death), but the moment that self-same individual decides to do the same thing on their own volition, it is suddenly a very heinous crime and must be punished accordingly.
Will I agree to an extent, I think there are times you have no other choice. Stopping Nazi Germany, for example, was justified and you couldn't do it without killing. But going to war should not be taken lightly, contrary to what the shurb thinks.
Its only ok if the group is acting to stop another group from infringing on a thirds rights.
So there you go, commercial software is just as viral as the GPL.
In other words, GPLed software is no more free than closed source software. I thought the point was to offer freedom and openness. That doesn't sound very open or free at all.
Note that I don't have a problem with the GPL; you can license however you want. Just don't try and claim that GPL code is somehow gives more freedom than closed source code.
These images do not satisfy the craving, they feed it and stimulate it. Eventually the images will not trigger the required endorphine release and something more will be needed to satisfy the urges.
Bullshit. Its called self control. People can exersice it, and do so all the time. I bet if people tell you some of the things they've thought about doing, you'd be pretty shocked (or likely not, since you likely share some of the same thoughts).
How? VZW won't even activate a phone for you nowadays unless you get it from them. Even a completely unlocked CDMA phone direct from Motorola. If you get the phone from them it's crippled to their network (even if you pay full price for it!).
Unicel and most others are willing to do that though. To uncriple your VZ crap phone, check out cellcables.com.
Indeed Verizon wants you to pay $4 per song, with crumy (ie, less than mp3) quality.
Fortuantly for my wife (especially since i didn't know vcast isn't even available here) you can buy some software to unlock the phone (v3m razr) and do whatever you want with it. Check out http://www.cellcables.com/.
And actually the GPL doesnt even apply to that user that hires a developer to work on the program to add xyz feature. You dont have to give changes to anyone, you have no obligation to do anything.
Sure it does; I hire you to modify the Gimp which you do. You give me the modified program... you've just distributed it and thus the changes I paid for must be given back to the Gimp.
the GPL code is a large enough portion that you can't feasably rewrite it. In the latter case, you have to ask yourself whether it would be fair to the authors of the GPL code to release a non-GPL work that consists mostly of their work.
I think the problem is that many developers USE the GPLed code, but don't extend it in anyway. They'd like to be able to use the library as is, without forcing THEIR project open. I find the GPL attitude kind of arrogant. I can understand if you extended some GPL code wanting those changes to come back, I don't have a problem witht that. But if the GPL code is just used by my code, I don't think its fair they tell me how I have to license my own software.
By contrast, software is non-rivalrous: me making a copy does not affect the ability of the person who owned the original to make use of it. Please, you and everybody else, learn the difference in order not to look like idiots.
Sorry, but you are looking like the idiot. First, you never qualified anything; you gave some grand, retarded statement.
Second, software is only worth nothing if it costs nothing to make. The fact that you can copy it without depriving someone else of the original is not the point; the point is that to get people to create software you they expect to be paid for their effort. Linux is taking off because companies have tried to make money off of it. Remove every paid open source programmer who is being paid to work on it, and I'm willing to bet it wouldn't be nearly as far along as it is now.
Finally, if I create something, its mine, and I don't HAVE to share it if I don't want to. Going to your chair example, if YOU find the chair pleasant or useful, then you should be willing to pay for either the specifications or for me to build you one. See, that's what freedom is about. I can share it for free, but I also may choose not to. There's nothing morally wrong with either choice. There is something morally wrong with trying to take away the makers freedom.
As long as you supply your own food, and you pay me for the extra energy used in cooking yours + mine as opposed to mine alone {which will be less than half the total, since some of it is going into the pan and the air in the kitchen}, then, yes.
Why should I provide my own food? Food and electricity are the fruits of humanity, which we all have a right to.
Drop the candle on your carpeting, and soon the house which 'we' own is totally gone.
All the fruits of all human endeavour belong to all of humanity. You may have written that software, but it does not belong to you: it belongs to everyone. As a human being, you have certain rights.
Where do you live? I want to look at a new TV and car. I'm sure you won't mind me just taking them.
Slashdot Mirror
You can cause all of those too if you're worried about your safety, even if that worry is unfounded. Your body will do what your mind wants, even if its not healthy.
Um, see that's where you're wrong. Invading Iraq and being involved in Vietnam are NOT justifable. We really didn't have any good reason to be in either of those places.
If you don't mind equating freedom with slavery, then sure.
Nice try, but that's not how its working. If you want to make use of GPL code, you are then restricted to GPLing your software. Please explain how that's a choice for the developer.
In a free society, no one has the freedom to own slaves. In a free software environment, no one has the right to restrict other's use of software.
Actually I'd think in a totally free society you COULD sell yourself into slavery if you choose to do so. In your free software environment though you're taking away developers freedom if they choose to use GPL code. The result is that some developers end up re-inventing the wheel.
It is fundamentally a different model from either capitalism or socialism, because both assume limited resources and a means to fairly distribute them. Software, and knowledge in general, is fundamentally different. Material resourses, at the lowest level matter and energy, are fundamentally limited to at best a constant (so far as we know). Material resources must be divided between entities in some way. On the other hand, information is limited only by the material available to encode it. There is an infinite supply of information, and it is virtually free to replicate and create. While material resorces must be divided up for the greatest good, information must be muliplied out for the greatest good. Everyone should have the best information available, since that translates into the highest possibly efficiency for use of material resources, effectively maximizing the material resources available.
The code itself can be copied infinitely, sure. Does that mean the time I spent in creating it is worthless? I do all the work, I put in the effort and investment, and you come along and say 'thanks, well take that!' and walk off. Wow, do I feel appreciated. Next time instead of writing code to the benefit of everyone, I guess I'll go build houses for a living..
If you don't agree, too bad. In my opinion, you're outnumbered by those who realize that sharing knowledge openly will maximize the good in our universe. Don't worry, the free sharing of information won't restrict your ability to discover and invent things, so unless you have a vested interest in controlling others for your own benefit, nothing will change to your disadvantage.
No, I think you're clearly in the minority. Sharing knowledge is helpful yes, but at the end of the day people need motivation to invest the time and effort required to create great software. How can I spend time creating something good if I'm worried about paying for my house? The answer is that I likely won't.
Oh, and if you think I'm making this up, you need to open your eyes. A very select few open source projects are successful; most end in failure though. THAT's the reality of the "community" you wish to build. People that no longer want to create software.
Maybe some of us simply hate the web clients for the free emails? I have a forwarder account so leaving service isn't a problem, and if Adelphia tried this, it WOULD prompt me to leave. Well, who am I kidding? I'm leaving anyone, just as soon as the city rolls out the fiber in my neighborhood. Good bye high prices and crappy service!
Thanks for backing me up on that one. The other side is that even when it does get 7 feet of snow, they're actually really damn good at removing it, and life goes on more or less unaffected.
They rated geography as important, and gave RIT a one. Then they slam Rochester, saying there's nothing to do? Not true.. there's plenty of things to do in Rochester. Even better, its not far from Geneseo. Some of us actually prefer Rochester's climate over Austins or Tampas!
I agree. I loved my time at RIT. The five years went all too quickly. Alas, I was off campus and graduated before they moved to the OC3.
FWIW, as long as you do keep your grades up, you shouldn't have problems landing a job (well, assuming CS anyway). I never heard of RIT before my friend told me about it, but plenty of people know the name and it has a good reputation... pretty much every interviewer I've talked to is aware of it.
I have to agree with you. I went to RIT because it seemed like a 'smart' campus that would have a lot of people I'd get a long with. Had I gone to something like Kutstown, I think I would have hated college, because I never really cared for the joke type people, and it seemed like socially that college would have been much more like HS.
Even though it's technically possible, it takes the actual clerk that has disdain for the company to actually let it happen.
Personally I think this is where the government could do some good by putting a regulation in place. This would futher force cell providers to compete more, since you don't lose the inventment of your phone. Phone prices would also likely drop, as you can now use some phones that were not available before on say Verizon.
I think prices are kept artifically high now, just so they can give you 'rebates' to entice you to sign up.
Even when they don't release it publically, they lack both the competence or will to keep it to themselves. I remember, ten years ago, an acquaintance who taunted a friend with private medical information. She had been a clerk for a debt collection agency and used her access to look up all of her friends. The big dumb companies share things they should not and don't keep tabs on it. Imagine what clerks at ChoicePoint could do, then think of how owned their little windoze terminals are. There's not much real privacy left anymore.
If this is true, and in the US, your friend can sue and easily win as sharing medical data is a HIPPA violation, unless she consented. I believe even then however, the requesing party has to have a ligitimate reason for the medical data; they can't just ask for it for the hell of it.
It depends on the carrier. For example, I had a nokia that COULD have worked with Virgin Mobile, but they were unwilling to let anything but the phones they sold on their network.
Its too bad; I like the razr I have now, but the nokia was an awesome phone as well and i wouldn't mind using it either.
They got screwed. It sucks. But at least it's nothing personal.
That doesn't help you feel any better though. You're still left with a feeling of failure. In my case, the parent company shut the entire company down. Fortunately, I had only just started, and had plenty of good things on my resume (and current). Others haven't been so fortunte.
Well since everyone agrees addiction is all in the mind already I wouldn't call it revolutionary.
Take, for instance, all the people that do drugs, have sex or gamble that don't have any problem with it and can stop any time they want. For example, my wife, who decided to quit smoking, and simply stopped. No withdrawl symptoms or anything.
This form of cognitive dissonance is frightening: It is alright for a group we call The State (a sovereign entity) to tell someone (another sovereign entity) to "kill that man over there" (in war or sentence of death), but the moment that self-same individual decides to do the same thing on their own volition, it is suddenly a very heinous crime and must be punished accordingly.
Will I agree to an extent, I think there are times you have no other choice. Stopping Nazi Germany, for example, was justified and you couldn't do it without killing. But going to war should not be taken lightly, contrary to what the shurb thinks.
Its only ok if the group is acting to stop another group from infringing on a thirds rights.
So there you go, commercial software is just as viral as the GPL.
In other words, GPLed software is no more free than closed source software. I thought the point was to offer freedom and openness. That doesn't sound very open or free at all.
Note that I don't have a problem with the GPL; you can license however you want. Just don't try and claim that GPL code is somehow gives more freedom than closed source code.
These images do not satisfy the craving, they feed it and stimulate it. Eventually the images will not trigger the required endorphine release and something more will be needed to satisfy the urges.
Bullshit. Its called self control. People can exersice it, and do so all the time. I bet if people tell you some of the things they've thought about doing, you'd be pretty shocked (or likely not, since you likely share some of the same thoughts).
We also know that millions of people the world over, have enjoyed viewing it and did not go on to be a pervert.
Forget that; millions of people enjoy engaging in "violent sex."
Is that your interpretation or do lawyers back that up?
How? VZW won't even activate a phone for you nowadays unless you get it from them. Even a completely unlocked CDMA phone direct from Motorola. If you get the phone from them it's crippled to their network (even if you pay full price for it!).
Unicel and most others are willing to do that though. To uncriple your VZ crap phone, check out cellcables.com.
Indeed Verizon wants you to pay $4 per song, with crumy (ie, less than mp3) quality.
Fortuantly for my wife (especially since i didn't know vcast isn't even available here) you can buy some software to unlock the phone (v3m razr) and do whatever you want with it. Check out http://www.cellcables.com/.
And actually the GPL doesnt even apply to that user that hires a developer to work on the program to add xyz feature. You dont have to give changes to anyone, you have no obligation to do anything.
Sure it does; I hire you to modify the Gimp which you do. You give me the modified program... you've just distributed it and thus the changes I paid for must be given back to the Gimp.
the GPL code is a large enough portion that you can't feasably rewrite it. In the latter case, you have to ask yourself whether it would be fair to the authors of the GPL code to release a non-GPL work that consists mostly of their work.
I think the problem is that many developers USE the GPLed code, but don't extend it in anyway. They'd like to be able to use the library as is, without forcing THEIR project open. I find the GPL attitude kind of arrogant. I can understand if you extended some GPL code wanting those changes to come back, I don't have a problem witht that. But if the GPL code is just used by my code, I don't think its fair they tell me how I have to license my own software.
By contrast, software is non-rivalrous: me making a copy does not affect the ability of the person who owned the original to make use of it. Please, you and everybody else, learn the difference in order not to look like idiots.
Sorry, but you are looking like the idiot. First, you never qualified anything; you gave some grand, retarded statement.
Second, software is only worth nothing if it costs nothing to make. The fact that you can copy it without depriving someone else of the original is not the point; the point is that to get people to create software you they expect to be paid for their effort. Linux is taking off because companies have tried to make money off of it. Remove every paid open source programmer who is being paid to work on it, and I'm willing to bet it wouldn't be nearly as far along as it is now.
Finally, if I create something, its mine, and I don't HAVE to share it if I don't want to. Going to your chair example, if YOU find the chair pleasant or useful, then you should be willing to pay for either the specifications or for me to build you one. See, that's what freedom is about. I can share it for free, but I also may choose not to. There's nothing morally wrong with either choice. There is something morally wrong with trying to take away the makers freedom.
As long as you supply your own food, and you pay me for the extra energy used in cooking yours + mine as opposed to mine alone {which will be less than half the total, since some of it is going into the pan and the air in the kitchen}, then, yes.
Why should I provide my own food? Food and electricity are the fruits of humanity, which we all have a right to.
Drop the candle on your carpeting, and soon the house which 'we' own is totally gone.
All the fruits of all human endeavour belong to all of humanity. You may have written that software, but it does not belong to you: it belongs to everyone. As a human being, you have certain rights.
Where do you live? I want to look at a new TV and car. I'm sure you won't mind me just taking them.