He ended up concluding that the translators had done so much revising that if god existed, he would have prevented the distortion.
Good fucking grief. He's ok with God letting millions of people being murdered: that doesn't disprove either God's benevolence or existence. But failure to edit a book: oh noes, this can't be happening!
God said : "Literary critics, where were you when I wrote the original? How dare you complain about me not signing off on every translation?"
Times change, values change and so must legal and political systems... When the FoundingFathers postulated on freedom of speach, equality and guns they were not thinking of the inernet/TV, women and blacks, nor automatic weapons.
And yet they anticipated that they hadn't thought of everything, and covered that case. The constitution describes a process whereby it can be amended, so that public policy can adapt to the times without the government having to break the law.
The founders' biggest failure is that they had too much faith in us. They figured that Americans valuing a democratic process was the one constant they could count on, so having amendments be something we debate and vote on, was reasonable. But it turned out that future Americans would not value democracy, so we adapted to the times by having the government create illegal policies instead of amending the constitution to make the new policies legal.
I would rephrase the GP's comment as "Imagine how much more productive our economy would be if we had the same ideals as the founders."
The fairness doctrine, though it did reduce liberty, at least had a rationalization. A large portion of the media used a very limited public resource (radio spectrum) and thus could theoretically be monopolized by some opinion.
I don't see a "very limited public resource" existing today. No one voice can monopolize speech now.
Pelosi wants to oppose liberty for no gain. This isn't merely along the currently popular lines of reducing liberty for expedience; this is for nothing.
where can you exercise your right to free speech in the Internet, without being subject to others' right to control how you make use of their property?
That is indeed tricky. The "solution" seems to publish on your own computer in your own home (because there is no public space, anywhere), instead of hosting on someone else's or even colocating your computer in someone else's datacenter. But then you run into the problem that when you host information, it's generally done in a manner where you're listening on a port and an ISP (whose network you use) can decide to not allow their net to be used by people initiating connections to your computer.
Perhaps things like freenet can solve that, where you are using other people's computers, but even if they desire to enforce their property rights, they can't effectively do so except by withdrawing from freenet.
Another alternative might be to self-host, but have so many pathways that an ISP cutting one link, doesn't significantly impact you. That's the dream(fantasy?) of wireless meshes and stuff like that.
Lots of browsers support it. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one browser that doesn't, and I've heard (not verified) that even that one can use it with a plugin, which makes SVG at least as deployable as Flash.
If I was not a victim, and I did not have any information that could help the police
The person you're replying to probably has a different hypothesis. Suppose the situation were thus: you're not a victim, and you have information that might help the police. The smart thing to do is not help (because talking to the police is risky even if you're innocent), but if everyone does the smart thing, we all lose.
I'm not sure that's a good idea. Once they get into power, they theoretically have access to information they don't have when mere candidates.
Suppose the situation were really something wacky (e.g. "Senator, we're not really dealing with Islamic terrorists; we have known all along that the aliens from the same group as the ones in Hanger 18, are the ones who are spying on us, and that router at AT&T is not actually spying on our citizens, but is rather injecting misinformation into the aliens' tap. We can't release this information to the public (because the aliens will then learn), but we can give you the proof in confidence right now. Here. We hope that you will vote against the investigation, because it just so happens that judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is a V-style alien reptile.")
Yes, I'm grasping at straws, but it's the best I can do to rationalize the continuing reign of our overlords.
I would mod you up until you squealed with delight all night long! And then, with our comment scores quivering at an average of 4.1, when you didn't think either of us had any more mod points, I would hit +1 insightful, sending your karma squirting into excellent and beyond.
Is this a joke? Would you have untrained "doctors" able to prescribe narcotics? Over use antibiotics? Perform surgery?
As long as the patient is allowed to select trained doctors, why not?
We're not talking about patients being forced to have surgery by untrained doctors, we're talking about whether patients should be allowed to have surgery by untrained doctors. The consequences of the patient's decision fall upon the very same person making that decision.
Situations like that, need no laws. So yes, I'd have untrained "doctors" able to to those things.
Yeah one time I found a linux virus! However I never did get it to run on my linux box...
There's a lib_compat_virus tarball in/pub/dist over at univ-mainz.de. Go get it and untar it../configure it with --enable-activex and --disable-pax, but also make sure to read the fucking install.txt for other configuration options relevant to your system. (I don't want to fucking hear from you if you don't RTFM!) Compile it with gcc 2.95, and sudo install it. Then edit/etc/virus.cf and set config_allow_tainted_nonGPL_virus to 0xFE. Your virus should work then.
No one in their right mind would give a flying shit what I waste all of my time on.
I see you are a coffee-drinker. Please accept this coupon for 50 cents off your next coffee, good at the Harbucks at the corner of nth and xth street, which you walk by every day at 7:52am.
Seriously, did you know MySpace uses the crap people put on their profiles, to select the ads to show to those people? Every bit of seemingly-useless crap you spew, can be used somehow.
Yeah, but what is a CS person suited to, that you would trust to someone who can't implement stuff? Programming skill seems like an important "reality check" to design.
Unless it isn't. And that's usually the case. Every programmer in the world, is employed based on the premise that whatever's on the shelves, isn't quite what people want.
There is no way I would release anything under 'AGPL' or even 'GPL' if it was important to my core business.
The point of licenses such as this, isn't to serve the developer; it's to serve the user. You have to look at it from that point of view, in order to understand it. Look at it as a user, and AGPL software is attractive and valuable.
As a user, the question is: how do you get such valuable software?
Answer that question, and then you'll see the developers' incentive. As a developer, the reason you would consider writing code with this license, is that someone who wants the software, would be paying you to. Getting paid is your core business.
That doesn't happen, though, until users begin to recognize the value of GPLed software. Thus, RMS preaches.
The "viral" aspect of GPL is related to this, and gives a second incentive for you, the developer, to create GPLed software. If someone wants some software that almost already exists, where most of the software has already been written (e.g. Linux or the GIMP or something like that), then you might be able to give a lower bid (and win the contract) by modifying such software instead of writing it from scratch. In that case, the GPL constrains you to release your new code under GPL. Everyone wins: you get paid, and more GPL software exists.
But yes, without someone paying you for your time, you'd have little other incentive to do this, other than altruism. Strangely, a lot of GPL software is still being produced by altruism, but don't be fooled: not all of it is. There are programmers at IBM, Novell, and Red Hat who are getting paychecks for this stuff.
I think it comes down to what your core business is. Is it to produce an IP asset (a copyrighted product that only you can sell)? Or is it to work for money? Traditionally, the first scenario is where the real money is. Bill Gates didn't make his fortune by collecting paychecks.
But if RMS and his like can convince people that GPLed software is valuable, the second model may increase in viability, and perhaps at the expense of the first. Why should I buy a product instead of hiring someone to modify a nearly-done free product for me?
WTF? Things getting more expensive, is a destructive thing. Remember that we started moving jobs out of Pittsburgh because it saved us money -- it benefited us (or at least we decided that it did) when we chose to spend less money by buying imported stuff instead. Now that savings is going away.
Opportunities will appear for some people (e.g. Pittsburgh residents), so you'll be some localized examples of it appearing to result in an advantage, but overall, we overwhelmingly lose.
I don't care how few servers they have, whats more interesting to me is that they run an ultra-high traffic site, which they aren't having trouble paying for, and do it without adds.
I can do that too; I just emulate the adds. x+y is the same as x-(0-y). You have to be careful to use signed numbers for everything (or else have a lot of casting), but that's not really all that hard.
The corporations, both legal and illegal, now own your computer in every way that matters.
I'm not sure it's just the corporations. It sounds like this makes everyone own everyone's computer. Even the "unauthorized use of software" phrase doesn't say anything about copyright holders; if I haven't authorized you to run Microsoft Word (and I even have a reason that this law further legitimizes: not authorizing you to run Microsoft stuff, is for purposes of network security) then this law gives me a shield from liability when I try to remove your Microsoft Word.
That's a perversion of the intent, of course, but that's what this bill says.
I hereby do not grant authorization to anyone, to do anything. Now if they'll just pass this bill, I can attack people with impunity.
Slashdot Mirror
Good fucking grief. He's ok with God letting millions of people being murdered: that doesn't disprove either God's benevolence or existence. But failure to edit a book: oh noes, this can't be happening!
God said : "Literary critics, where were you when I wrote the original? How dare you complain about me not signing off on every translation?"
And yet they anticipated that they hadn't thought of everything, and covered that case. The constitution describes a process whereby it can be amended, so that public policy can adapt to the times without the government having to break the law.
The founders' biggest failure is that they had too much faith in us. They figured that Americans valuing a democratic process was the one constant they could count on, so having amendments be something we debate and vote on, was reasonable. But it turned out that future Americans would not value democracy, so we adapted to the times by having the government create illegal policies instead of amending the constitution to make the new policies legal.
I would rephrase the GP's comment as "Imagine how much more productive our economy would be if we had the same ideals as the founders."
Somebody really should be making that movie.
Count me as one of them, on the basis of "Who the hell is 'we'?" Does we include me? I don't remember visiting the moon.
Kill them, of course.
The fairness doctrine, though it did reduce liberty, at least had a rationalization. A large portion of the media used a very limited public resource (radio spectrum) and thus could theoretically be monopolized by some opinion.
I don't see a "very limited public resource" existing today. No one voice can monopolize speech now.
Pelosi wants to oppose liberty for no gain. This isn't merely along the currently popular lines of reducing liberty for expedience; this is for nothing.
That is indeed tricky. The "solution" seems to publish on your own computer in your own home (because there is no public space, anywhere), instead of hosting on someone else's or even colocating your computer in someone else's datacenter. But then you run into the problem that when you host information, it's generally done in a manner where you're listening on a port and an ISP (whose network you use) can decide to not allow their net to be used by people initiating connections to your computer.
Perhaps things like freenet can solve that, where you are using other people's computers, but even if they desire to enforce their property rights, they can't effectively do so except by withdrawing from freenet.
Another alternative might be to self-host, but have so many pathways that an ISP cutting one link, doesn't significantly impact you. That's the dream(fantasy?) of wireless meshes and stuff like that.
Lots of browsers support it. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one browser that doesn't, and I've heard (not verified) that even that one can use it with a plugin, which makes SVG at least as deployable as Flash.
The person you're replying to probably has a different hypothesis. Suppose the situation were thus: you're not a victim, and you have information that might help the police. The smart thing to do is not help (because talking to the police is risky even if you're innocent), but if everyone does the smart thing, we all lose.
So the cities can't create uneven playing fields by selling franchises to .. um.. you?
Sheesh, these fuckers want it both ways.
HTML has had a tag for video, from the very beginning: anchor. <A HREF="blahblah.mpg">watch this video</A>
I'm not sure that's a good idea. Once they get into power, they theoretically have access to information they don't have when mere candidates.
Suppose the situation were really something wacky (e.g. "Senator, we're not really dealing with Islamic terrorists; we have known all along that the aliens from the same group as the ones in Hanger 18, are the ones who are spying on us, and that router at AT&T is not actually spying on our citizens, but is rather injecting misinformation into the aliens' tap. We can't release this information to the public (because the aliens will then learn), but we can give you the proof in confidence right now. Here. We hope that you will vote against the investigation, because it just so happens that judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is a V-style alien reptile.")
Yes, I'm grasping at straws, but it's the best I can do to rationalize the continuing reign of our overlords.
I would mod you up until you squealed with delight all night long! And then, with our comment scores quivering at an average of 4.1, when you didn't think either of us had any more mod points, I would hit +1 insightful, sending your karma squirting into excellent and beyond.
Eww. If mechanic -> PC-tech, then licensed civil engineer -> ?
Your argument might pave the way for mandatory licensing of programmers.
As long as the patient is allowed to select trained doctors, why not?
We're not talking about patients being forced to have surgery by untrained doctors, we're talking about whether patients should be allowed to have surgery by untrained doctors. The consequences of the patient's decision fall upon the very same person making that decision.
Situations like that, need no laws. So yes, I'd have untrained "doctors" able to to those things.
There's a lib_compat_virus tarball in /pub/dist over at univ-mainz.de. Go get it and untar it. ./configure it with --enable-activex and --disable-pax, but also make sure to read the fucking install.txt for other configuration options relevant to your system. (I don't want to fucking hear from you if you don't RTFM!) Compile it with gcc 2.95, and sudo install it. Then edit /etc/virus.cf and set config_allow_tainted_nonGPL_virus to 0xFE. Your virus should work then.
I see you are a coffee-drinker. Please accept this coupon for 50 cents off your next coffee, good at the Harbucks at the corner of nth and xth street, which you walk by every day at 7:52am.
Seriously, did you know MySpace uses the crap people put on their profiles, to select the ads to show to those people? Every bit of seemingly-useless crap you spew, can be used somehow.
Yeah, but what is a CS person suited to, that you would trust to someone who can't implement stuff? Programming skill seems like an important "reality check" to design.
Unless it isn't. And that's usually the case. Every programmer in the world, is employed based on the premise that whatever's on the shelves, isn't quite what people want.
The point of licenses such as this, isn't to serve the developer; it's to serve the user. You have to look at it from that point of view, in order to understand it. Look at it as a user, and AGPL software is attractive and valuable.
As a user, the question is: how do you get such valuable software?
Answer that question, and then you'll see the developers' incentive. As a developer, the reason you would consider writing code with this license, is that someone who wants the software, would be paying you to. Getting paid is your core business.
That doesn't happen, though, until users begin to recognize the value of GPLed software. Thus, RMS preaches.
The "viral" aspect of GPL is related to this, and gives a second incentive for you, the developer, to create GPLed software. If someone wants some software that almost already exists, where most of the software has already been written (e.g. Linux or the GIMP or something like that), then you might be able to give a lower bid (and win the contract) by modifying such software instead of writing it from scratch. In that case, the GPL constrains you to release your new code under GPL. Everyone wins: you get paid, and more GPL software exists.
But yes, without someone paying you for your time, you'd have little other incentive to do this, other than altruism. Strangely, a lot of GPL software is still being produced by altruism, but don't be fooled: not all of it is. There are programmers at IBM, Novell, and Red Hat who are getting paychecks for this stuff.
I think it comes down to what your core business is. Is it to produce an IP asset (a copyrighted product that only you can sell)? Or is it to work for money? Traditionally, the first scenario is where the real money is. Bill Gates didn't make his fortune by collecting paychecks.
But if RMS and his like can convince people that GPLed software is valuable, the second model may increase in viability, and perhaps at the expense of the first. Why should I buy a product instead of hiring someone to modify a nearly-done free product for me?
WTF? Things getting more expensive, is a destructive thing. Remember that we started moving jobs out of Pittsburgh because it saved us money -- it benefited us (or at least we decided that it did) when we chose to spend less money by buying imported stuff instead. Now that savings is going away.
Opportunities will appear for some people (e.g. Pittsburgh residents), so you'll be some localized examples of it appearing to result in an advantage, but overall, we overwhelmingly lose.
This is a bad (though inevitable) thing.
I'm not sure it's just the corporations. It sounds like this makes everyone own everyone's computer. Even the "unauthorized use of software" phrase doesn't say anything about copyright holders; if I haven't authorized you to run Microsoft Word (and I even have a reason that this law further legitimizes: not authorizing you to run Microsoft stuff, is for purposes of network security) then this law gives me a shield from liability when I try to remove your Microsoft Word.
That's a perversion of the intent, of course, but that's what this bill says.
I hereby do not grant authorization to anyone, to do anything. Now if they'll just pass this bill, I can attack people with impunity.
This is actually a good idea. Sell enough of them to raise the funds in order to buy the expensive AoE cabinets that you want but can't afford.