I don't think so. If you develop with Qt, you either have to pay big bucks to Troll Tech up front, or you have irrevocably committed to putting your software under an open source license. Since the latter is usually not acceptable to enterprises (even open-source friendly enterprises), this means paying a lot of money per developer up front.
Keep in mind that there is plenty of software that never gets "distributed". Licensing isn't an issue then, really. If you use Qt under the GPL to develop an in-house tool/application/minderbinder, you're not exactly obligated to go set up a CVS repository at SourceForge.
This is the same tactic the music and motion picture industries have used to mixed success against file-swappers
Uhh, this is true. They're handling the case in pretty much the same way. That says nothing about the similarities/differences of phishing and file-swapping.
Your generalizations don't hold up for a second. Plenty of "give-to-the-poor" programs have been shown to straight up lift people out of poverty, not enslave them to some imaginary "inescapable cycle". That sounds to me like a poor rationalization.
I'd say if you're claiming that we're somehow hurting poor people by giving them things, you've got one pretty large burden of proof. You can spout all the personal anecdotes about generous libertarians you want to, but I don't believe for a second that enough good-natured citizens are queued up to fill in everywhere for government when it comes to assistance for those who need it.
Here's the justification behind my "pinko" figures. Take it or leave it. Considering I live in a state with no income tax, I purchase few non-food items offline, and I don't operate a vehicle, federal income tax is pretty representative of where my tax money is going. See ya in Canada.
"Prevailing governmental theory" != the law. I'll concede the point to you if you can point me to where this is written down in Texas' constitution. Otherwise you're just making another baseless assertion.
Sorry, I've been making the same point all along. The Constitution doesn't explicitly prevent the states from providing free wifi. Therefore they have the right. Therefore it would take a state law to make it illegitimate. Help me, I'm beaten, I'm melting, mellllting!
Feel free to go on criticizing the form of my arguments rather than their substance.
I pay assloads of money into social security, disibility insurance, welfare, and other thousands of other "give-to the-poor" government programs for what?
For the benefit of others. For the benefit of society. That's why we're a "civilization" and not a jungle. But I suppose you think that your current position in society is purely on account of your own merit, and everyone who can't swim should go fuck themselves, correct?
Go Libertarian, liberals are artsy fags.
Thanks for reminding me why I'm glad I keep the liberal company I do.
The federal government. 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And this clearly is a state issue. But that's all beside the point. You said that this is not a "legitimate function" of government. I contend that this is a pretty baseless assertion. The only case in which this becomes an illegitimate function of government (state government, remember) is when a law is passed saying it is. And since the debate here is essentially on the merit of such a law, it's rather circular to make such a statement.
And since private enterprise is so well-known for promoting global, compatible, open standards, I'm sure the Internet as we know it would be tremendously better if it had been privately created. I can see the board-room meeting now: the executives have a vision of a global, nigh-uncontrollable communication medium. No one knows how such a thing will enable the company to earn more profit, but they're not blinded by the stupendous nearsightedness of market forces. They want to do it simply because their private enterprise is streamlined enough to do it right.
Poor people benefit. Taxpayers pay. Selfish people get upset, but don't seem to care that half of their income taxes fund a ridiculous military that outspends every other nation on the planet by a wide margin.
So, given the ability to vote in what is probably the single most important election the world will see in at least the next four years, you based your decision off of a statistically insignificant sample of attitudes and behaviors that have nothing at all to do with the candidates in question?
You're right! And for that matter, what use has space travel been for us? I mean, all we ever did was go there and come back! Ridiculous! Or physics! All it ever got us was a bunch of equations!
Properties of mathematics seem to be the very underpinning of our collective reality. I'd say anything that tells us more about those properties, however esoteric they seem to be, is worth pursuing.
I'm sure it's been said before, but seriously! Fine, I'll entertain the notion that the scientific community at large has some impossible-to-understand agenda involving global warming. We all know, for a fact, the earth is warming. So let's pretend we have absolutely no idea why that is. Our options:
Do nothing. Continue to pour all sorts of shit into our atmosphere, and cross our fingers that global warming is just a natural fluctuation in the sun's output, or God's wrath, or whatever.
Reduce emissions. Cut down on greenhouse gasses that maybe, just maybe, are the source of the this problem, and in the process stem the tide of other environmental damage associated with some of the same processes (or is acid rain another scientific myth?).
I'm sorry, but spouting economic reasons to play dice with the global climate smacks of arbitrary denial.
I think evil is a pretty slippery thing to claim as one of the "absolutes" in the world. It's hard to argue against a relativistic interpretation of it, even if you personally have well-defined concepts of what is evil and what isn't.
It's not quite the same. Googling the person's name searches for anyone with that name, regardless of location. This search is narrowed by city, and it appears that the address doesn't necessarily need to be on the same page as the reference in order for it to link up. Anyway, regardless of the redundancy of the information, getting a direct, visual map result instantly is quite a bit different from sifting through the text of a web page.
But I was only half-serious with the "scariness" of it; obviously, the ease with which you can find many peoples' SSNs is more realistically disturbing... it's just not as visually obvious.
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but try:
someonesname city, state
If a business page mentions that person's name, it pulls it up on the map as a hit. A friend of mine searched his name and it found the church he frequents. Scary, eh?
But this only makes sense if you're running an insecure OS known for frequent vulnerabilities to spyware and viruses.
And therefore that "unnamed OS" is the only one with security issues? Face it, there are vulnerabilities in almost every desktop system in use today.
And how exactly is this useful to the user?
I'm sorry if the idea of a keylogger doesn't freak you out, but it should. Someone with your email password can do quite a lot (think about how many "I forgot my password" systems rely only on access to your email to effectively authenticate your identity). Businesses working with very sensitive data or even just security-conscious consumers that would see their credit card info encrypted the second it leaves their fingers may see the value in something like this.
hanging an straw charicature of the president in efegy, perhaps
Under normal circumstances, these are both equally pointless gestures meant to do nothing but offend. So who cares? It's not like they're digging up the graves of revolutionary soldiers... why does the symbol mean even more to you than the thoughts and beliefs of the flag burners?
Anyway, I can see exactly one context in which flag burning becomes a meaningful exercise: To protest such a restriction from being in place. Today, I have nothing but indifference to morons who burn flags and think it means something. If it was illegalized tomorrow, I'd be on the street with some gasoline and the stars and stripes in a flash.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so. If you develop with Qt, you either have to pay big bucks to Troll Tech up front, or you have irrevocably committed to putting your software under an open source license. Since the latter is usually not acceptable to enterprises (even open-source friendly enterprises), this means paying a lot of money per developer up front.
Keep in mind that there is plenty of software that never gets "distributed". Licensing isn't an issue then, really. If you use Qt under the GPL to develop an in-house tool/application/minderbinder, you're not exactly obligated to go set up a CVS repository at SourceForge.
This is the same tactic the music and motion picture industries have used to mixed success against file-swappers
Uhh, this is true. They're handling the case in pretty much the same way. That says nothing about the similarities/differences of phishing and file-swapping.
Your generalizations don't hold up for a second. Plenty of "give-to-the-poor" programs have been shown to straight up lift people out of poverty, not enslave them to some imaginary "inescapable cycle". That sounds to me like a poor rationalization.
I'd say if you're claiming that we're somehow hurting poor people by giving them things, you've got one pretty large burden of proof. You can spout all the personal anecdotes about generous libertarians you want to, but I don't believe for a second that enough good-natured citizens are queued up to fill in everywhere for government when it comes to assistance for those who need it.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
Here's the justification behind my "pinko" figures. Take it or leave it. Considering I live in a state with no income tax, I purchase few non-food items offline, and I don't operate a vehicle, federal income tax is pretty representative of where my tax money is going. See ya in Canada.
"Prevailing governmental theory" != the law. I'll concede the point to you if you can point me to where this is written down in Texas' constitution. Otherwise you're just making another baseless assertion.
Sorry, I've been making the same point all along. The Constitution doesn't explicitly prevent the states from providing free wifi. Therefore they have the right. Therefore it would take a state law to make it illegitimate. Help me, I'm beaten, I'm melting, mellllting!
Feel free to go on criticizing the form of my arguments rather than their substance.
I pay assloads of money into social security, disibility insurance, welfare, and other thousands of other "give-to the-poor" government programs for what?
For the benefit of others. For the benefit of society. That's why we're a "civilization" and not a jungle. But I suppose you think that your current position in society is purely on account of your own merit, and everyone who can't swim should go fuck themselves, correct?
Go Libertarian, liberals are artsy fags.
Thanks for reminding me why I'm glad I keep the liberal company I do.
The federal government. 10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And this clearly is a state issue. But that's all beside the point. You said that this is not a "legitimate function" of government. I contend that this is a pretty baseless assertion. The only case in which this becomes an illegitimate function of government (state government, remember) is when a law is passed saying it is. And since the debate here is essentially on the merit of such a law, it's rather circular to make such a statement.
And since private enterprise is so well-known for promoting global, compatible, open standards, I'm sure the Internet as we know it would be tremendously better if it had been privately created. I can see the board-room meeting now: the executives have a vision of a global, nigh-uncontrollable communication medium. No one knows how such a thing will enable the company to earn more profit, but they're not blinded by the stupendous nearsightedness of market forces. They want to do it simply because their private enterprise is streamlined enough to do it right.
You are using the Internet right now, right?
Besides which, providing wireless access is not a legitimate function of government.
Really? I wasn't aware that Article N of the constitution proclaims "And the government shall institute no wireless network with public money."
Myth: Private enterprise is always faster/better/cheaper than public enterprise.
That doesn't explain why a law is necessary to prevent elected representatives of the peope from spending money on this.
Poor people benefit. Taxpayers pay. Selfish people get upset, but don't seem to care that half of their income taxes fund a ridiculous military that outspends every other nation on the planet by a wide margin.
Ahh, it feels good to be a liberal.
So, given the ability to vote in what is probably the single most important election the world will see in at least the next four years, you based your decision off of a statistically insignificant sample of attitudes and behaviors that have nothing at all to do with the candidates in question?
Fuck you for being part of the problem.
You're right! And for that matter, what use has space travel been for us? I mean, all we ever did was go there and come back! Ridiculous! Or physics! All it ever got us was a bunch of equations!
Properties of mathematics seem to be the very underpinning of our collective reality. I'd say anything that tells us more about those properties, however esoteric they seem to be, is worth pursuing.
- Do nothing. Continue to pour all sorts of shit into our atmosphere, and cross our fingers that global warming is just a natural fluctuation in the sun's output, or God's wrath, or whatever.
- Reduce emissions. Cut down on greenhouse gasses that maybe, just maybe, are the source of the this problem, and in the process stem the tide of other environmental damage associated with some of the same processes (or is acid rain another scientific myth?).
I'm sorry, but spouting economic reasons to play dice with the global climate smacks of arbitrary denial.Oh, come off it, it's not like he's reading any of this.
Digital Franklin says: He who would give away essential software liberty for a temporary safety from l33t h4x0rz deserves neither.
Don't like it? Leave. You can complain all you like after you're gone.
Oh! I didn't realize you worked for EA.
There are some absolutes in this world.
I think evil is a pretty slippery thing to claim as one of the "absolutes" in the world. It's hard to argue against a relativistic interpretation of it, even if you personally have well-defined concepts of what is evil and what isn't.
It's not quite the same. Googling the person's name searches for anyone with that name, regardless of location. This search is narrowed by city, and it appears that the address doesn't necessarily need to be on the same page as the reference in order for it to link up. Anyway, regardless of the redundancy of the information, getting a direct, visual map result instantly is quite a bit different from sifting through the text of a web page.
But I was only half-serious with the "scariness" of it; obviously, the ease with which you can find many peoples' SSNs is more realistically disturbing... it's just not as visually obvious.
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but try:
someonesname city, state
If a business page mentions that person's name, it pulls it up on the map as a hit. A friend of mine searched his name and it found the church he frequents. Scary, eh?
But this only makes sense if you're running an insecure OS known for frequent vulnerabilities to spyware and viruses.
And therefore that "unnamed OS" is the only one with security issues? Face it, there are vulnerabilities in almost every desktop system in use today.
And how exactly is this useful to the user?
I'm sorry if the idea of a keylogger doesn't freak you out, but it should. Someone with your email password can do quite a lot (think about how many "I forgot my password" systems rely only on access to your email to effectively authenticate your identity). Businesses working with very sensitive data or even just security-conscious consumers that would see their credit card info encrypted the second it leaves their fingers may see the value in something like this.
hanging an straw charicature of the president in efegy, perhaps
Under normal circumstances, these are both equally pointless gestures meant to do nothing but offend. So who cares? It's not like they're digging up the graves of revolutionary soldiers... why does the symbol mean even more to you than the thoughts and beliefs of the flag burners?
Anyway, I can see exactly one context in which flag burning becomes a meaningful exercise: To protest such a restriction from being in place. Today, I have nothing but indifference to morons who burn flags and think it means something. If it was illegalized tomorrow, I'd be on the street with some gasoline and the stars and stripes in a flash.