Just as an FYI for anyone considering this, implanted RFID have been known to cause a high incidence of cancer around the implantation area. There's research showing it in animal models, I found out after my pet had to have his RFID tracker replaced (they use this in pets to let vet offices identify your pet if it gets lost).
Apparently the body doesn't like certain subcutaneous implanted foreign objects and cancerous growths build around it.
Where's your proof? Keith Johnson? For all you know, this man is just spreading FUD because he doesn't like RFID.
If the body builds tumors around foreign objects, why doesn't everybody with a piercing or shrapnel develop cancer?
I'm an atheist (among other things), and I'll most likely vote for Mr. Obama. One of the things that I admire about him is that, even though he's confirmed he's a more-or-less Congregationalist Christian, he doesn't use his religion as his platform. The only time I've ever noticed him bring up his religion was in rebuttal to claims he was a Muslim. I don't care what religion he chooses to practice (or not practice)--religion is a personal choice, and has no place in politics. As long as he doesn't make political decisions based on faith-based ignorance, he's cool with me.
Does RMS not drive a car built in the past 20 years because you aren't supposed to change the computer running the engine? What about fly in a commercial airliner?
The software that's running on the car's computer is not user-modifiable. It's a black box. The same goes for the software used to fly planes. That software is not being distributed to the planes' passengers. The proprietary wireless driver issue would be solved if all of the proprietary components were stored in the firmware and if the firmware weren't meant to be re-flashed. Think of the idea as a sticker on a piece of consumer electronics (or a PSU) that says NO USER SERVICEABLE PARTS INSIDE.
I had no idea until now (I've never even seen a.ir URL before), but one of the images on the Iranian government's Web site features the GNU and Linux mascots. Clicking on that link brings you to http://it.iran.ir/ which features instructions on how to add Iran's CentOS mirror to your yum repos. I think this article would've been much more interesting if it had featured the government of Iran's involvement in the free software community. For one, it would have been true. A government that distributes a free operating system can't be that oppressive, can it?
You wouldn't be trumping the Romney card if you lived in Massachusetts. He practically dismantled our education system and proved he's inept at balancing a checkbook. He did little to get our state out of recession and, in the opinion of many Massachusetts residents, he lied about the state's budget. This Star Tribune article sums up much of this sentiment well. Everything about the man is staged and scripted. I guess a rehearsed weasel is better than what we have now, but can't you raise your standards just a little higher?
So then net radio stations should just stay away from SoundExchange artists altogether and find a way to deliver royalties directly to the artists that are left.
Free software and free access to RE-AIRING of content is not outrageous.
Great! I'm glad you see things my way! That's exactly what I'm saying. iPlayer is not free (libre) software. It's a platform-dependent proprietary application. The community is fighting for a cross-platform solution, free from vendor lock-in; a free software alternative that will run on a free software operating system. While the access technically isn't free (gratis), as it's already been subsidized by TV license fees forced out of the British populace's collective pocket, it absolutely should be free (libre) for everyone who has subsidized it. Therefore, one of the messages behind all of the protest is: Free (libre) software and free (libre) access to RE-AIRING of content that's already been paid for is not outrageous. In fact, it's expected. Because it is expected by the British general public, it is the BBC's legal obligation to comply. Don't forget that everybody (law-abiding) in England pays the BBC to own a TV. The BBC is not a subscription-based service.
Educate yourself. Don't be a lazy-assed communist.
Did you forget to take your medication this morning? You seem to be lumping yourself in with the “lazy-assed communists” you so readily seem to bash.
That's entirely possible. Triclosan doesn't just kill bacteria. It kills mold and fungus, too, so if you had mold on your hands, anti-bacterial soap would have destroyed it, whereas regular soap, AFAIK, would not.
How regular soap works, from Wikipedia:
Although frequently used as an additive to soap, triclosan is not actually necessary in soap to kill bacteria. Soap is itself an effective microbicide due to the fact that soap breaks down oils. All bacterial cell walls are based on lipid chains, which are oil based. The simple act of applying soap to the hands and rubbing vigorously will cause the cell walls of any bacteria on the hands to be ripped apart by the soap, disintegrating and killing any bacteria present. A comprehensive analysis from the U-M School of Public Health indicated that plain soaps are just as effective as consumer-grade anti-bacterial soaps with triclosan in preventing illness and reducing bacteria on the hands.
Soap can damage the cell walls of all animal cells and can also kill / disintegrate human cells, but the thick layer of dead cells in the epidermis of the skin generally protects humans from the potentially damaging effects of soap. Repeated frequent scrubbing with soap can remove the skin oils impregnating the layer of dead skin cells, leading to dryness and flaking of the dead cell layer.
The addition of triclosan to hand soap can be seen as a convenience. The breakdown of waxes and oils with pure soap takes time, and a very quick application and wash-off of pure soap may be insufficient to break down bacteria protected by thick waxes. A popular instruction for hand-washing with pure soap is that it should take about as long to scrub and rub the hands and brush under the fingernails as it does to sing the nursery rhyme Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. Triclosan is useful in that it is retained on the hands following washing as a residual skin coating, and continues to kill bacteria.
First, a little education for you, courtesy of Wikipedia: (emphasis mine)
Founded in 1922 as the British Broadcasting Company Ltd, it was subsequently granted a Royal Charter and made a state-owned but independent corporation in 1927. The corporation produces programmes and information services, broadcasting globally on television, radio, and the Internet. The stated mission of the BBC is "to inform, educate and entertain"; its motto is "Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation".
The BBC is a quasi-autonomous Public Corporation operating as a public service broadcaster. The Corporation is run by the BBC Trust; however, the BBC is, per its charter, to be "free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners".
Its domestic programming and broadcasts are primarily funded by levying television licence fees (under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949), although money is also raised through commercial activities such as sale of merchandise and programming. The BBC World Service, however, is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In order to justify the licence fee, the BBC is expected to produce a number of high-rating shows in addition to programmes that commercial broadcasters would not normally broadcast.
With that out of the way...
This is re-aired content. Why should you get it free twice when you paid once?
Why should people who do business with Microsoft get it “free twice”, as you put it, but everyone else shouldn't? Tax dollars/license fees are still paying for the online hosting and distribution of this content.
How about the BBC just calling it even, airing content once, and then you can never see it again. Even American PBS sells its post-aired content.
I personally wouldn't see an issue with that. The key phrase you used is “calling it even”. Everyone would have the same access to the re-aired content, regardless of their personal commercial and political preferences regarding computing. However, I'm not a license-fee-paying BBC viewer or listener, so my opinion on that doesn't really matter. I'll bet there are viewers and listeners who do pay the license fee who do want content to be available and accessible for no additional fee. These are the people the BBC answers to.
When a government agency introduces outrageous requirements that force people to do business with a single corporation in order to get access to a service, that is an example of either corruption or incompetence. The BBC are punishing people who aren't Microsoft customers by denying them access through technical means to the content that's distributed through their Web site and playable with iPlayer. Like it or not, the British populace has no choice but to fund the hosting of the iPlayer content if they own televisions.
Does that sound like the BBC is being “free from both political and commercial influence” to you?
There is no room in this world for lazy and cheap-ass communists.
Do you also think the issues surrounding ODF usage in government are stupid, or fueled by cheap, lazy communists? It's the same issue, just packaged differently. I pay my government through tax money. Therefore, I have a right to any service the government furnishes to the general public for which I've paid. As a government agency, it is the BBC's obligation to cater to every person who pays them the TV tax, which is pretty much everybody.
It all boils down to equal taxation without equal consideration and representation. The BBC's viewers and listeners have spoken. As a corporation that “answers only to its viewers and listeners”, the BBC needs to be held accountable, one way or another.
The American Revolution was started over these same principles. Petty? Communist? We'll let history answer that question.
...except that the iPlayer content is funded by the British “TV tax”. Free (gratis)? Hardly.
If I lived in the UK and was forced to pay for a TV license (instated by the BBC), I would expect to have equal access to the programming for which I payed, regardless of my operating system and browser of choice. I choose freedom by using free software, so I would be ineligible to make use of a service for which I've already paid.
Government agencies forcing people to do business with monopolistic corporations? Yeah, that's definitely protest-worthy.
Yes, but an ultrasound machine generates the soundwaves. The same thing goes for sonar. The VRI device analyzes soundwaves generated by the lungs themselves, such as with wheezing. The VRI device's pricetag ($40,000 to $50,000) is comparable to that of its high-end ultrasound counterparts. When implementations of VRI are more common (read: the technology is proven and available from multiple vendors), expect the price to drop considerably.
From TFA:
Kushnir's process, which uses no radiation, works by analyzing acoustic vibrations given off by the lungs. As a patient breathes normally for several seconds, sensors placed on the back--in effect, electronic stethoscopes--pick up these lung vibrations and feed them to a computer, where they're processed and turned into vivid images. Conditions such as asthma, emphysema, and pneumonia each produce distinct and definable images.
If you've been a Debian user for six years, then you should understand the hype. I, too, am a Debian user. I find the Debian way to simply be superior. I'll take Synaptic/Aptitude over RPM/Yum any day, and while I do like the idea behind Portage, I have better things to do than to wait for my entire OS to compile.
I've been using Ubuntu (which is Debian) for about a year now. I use it because it's more up-to-date than vanilla Debian, yet it's still stable enough for my needs.
I use Debian stable on production servers that I need up 100% of the time. On these servers, I really don't need bleeding-edge features, so Debian's long release cycle is fine in this scenario.
I use Ubuntu [whatever stable is currently called] on my PCs because it's stable enough for average PC usage, yet it has more current software. My desktops and laptops are partly there to serve as “toys”, so I want newer features on them. If my laptop crashes and I absolutely have to reboot, big deal, I'll live.
I did use gNewSense on my main desktop PC, but it was lacking in features that I needed, and there were no plans at the time to create a Feisty-based gNewSense, so I moved back to Ubuntu. I just disable the multiverse repository, so it's good enough for me for now (although I will be switching to “Gobuntu”, and then most likely back to gNewSense when it manages to keep up with the Ubuntu/“Gobuntu” release cycle).
So, instead of guaranteeing my right to access documents produced by my state's government (born and raised in a Boston suburb), you're suggesting that the State House produce documents in a Microsoft-sponsored document format that may or may not work with my Free software applications? How do you suppose that is going to work? Even documents be ODF and odd documents be OOXML? One department use ODF and another OOXML? I doubt the State House would take the extra time/effort to save all documents in both formats every time.
What if document XYZ that provides an important form that I need is only available in OOXML, and that particular document makes use of a proprietary OOXML feature? I use Free software, so I'm not allowed to view the document? I have to pay Microsoft in order to conduct business with my government?
I'd rather have one standard that's guaranteed to be 100% transparent in order to guarantee unfettered access to government resources.
I don't care for Prince's music much, but this bold move has made me a fan. When is the free CD coming to the US? More importantly, how do I send him money directly as a show of thanks?
I really don't want to spend too much time worrying that someone might make money with my stuff when I know that I won't.
Hold it right there. Free software copyleft licenses don't exist to prevent capitalism. They exist to prevent turning free software into proprietary software. It has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with secrecy and control.
Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (20k characters) (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.
The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too large for anyone to pay--such as a billion dollars--and thus pretend to release source code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for source, to ensure the user's freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them.
Sometimes companies whose activities cross the line of what the GNU GPL permits plead for permission, saying that they "won't charge money for the GNU software" or such like. They don't get anywhere this way. Free software is about freedom, and enforcing the GPL is defending freedom. When we defend users' freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.
open source to me means that the source code is available, nothing more, and nothing less
You can interpret the term however you wish, but that doesn't change its definition. Bruce Perens coined the phrase “Open Source Software” as a business-friendly synonym for the phrase “Free Software”. The Open Source Definition, also written by Bruce Perens, is the definition of the phrase he coined. What you're talking about isn't Open Source by the very definition of the term.
The word “toaster” has a specific definition. It's a device that makes toast. If you decide you want to change your definition of “toaster” to match the definition of “fish”, that doesn't magically turn all toasters into fish.
I think the term you're looking for is “Viewable Source” or “Read-Only Source”. Regardless of what you decide to call it, it's all proprietary, and Open Source Software is software that's not proprietary.
Many people consider qmail to be an Open Source program because the source is viewable by anyone who wants to view it and because the program doesn't cost anything. However, it's not Open Source. From qmail.org:
In case you're wondering, qmail is not open source, and does not qualify for use of the OSI-Certified trademark. Other programs which Dan Bernstein licenses similarly, including djbdns, ucspi-tcp, and daemontools, are also not open source. For a program to be "open source", you must be able to, among other things, change the source and redistribute it. DJB prohibits distribution of modified code and so programs which are so-licensed are not open source. Other code written by DJB has been placed into the public domain. Public domain code is unlicensed, and it qualifies for use of the OSI-certified trademark.
It is true that the source code is viewable for qmail. However, qmail is still a proprietary application. Not Free Software. Remember, “Open Source Software” is a synonym for “Free Software”. If it isn't Free, it isn't Open Source.
Slashdot Mirror
Just as an FYI for anyone considering this, implanted RFID have been known to cause a high incidence of cancer around the implantation area. There's research showing it in animal models, I found out after my pet had to have his RFID tracker replaced (they use this in pets to let vet offices identify your pet if it gets lost).
Apparently the body doesn't like certain subcutaneous implanted foreign objects and cancerous growths build around it.
Where's your proof? Keith Johnson? For all you know, this man is just spreading FUD because he doesn't like RFID.If the body builds tumors around foreign objects, why doesn't everybody with a piercing or shrapnel develop cancer?
If you're going to do it, do it right:
In Soviet Russia, cable untangles YOU !!
Regarding your sig as of 13 Feb 2008, which asks, "Why would an Atheist vote Obama?"
I'm an atheist (among other things), and I'll most likely vote for Mr. Obama. One of the things that I admire about him is that, even though he's confirmed he's a more-or-less Congregationalist Christian, he doesn't use his religion as his platform. The only time I've ever noticed him bring up his religion was in rebuttal to claims he was a Muslim. I don't care what religion he chooses to practice (or not practice)--religion is a personal choice, and has no place in politics. As long as he doesn't make political decisions based on faith-based ignorance, he's cool with me.
Huckabee, on the other hand...
Yet people still make that promise, anyway. So, instead of breach of contract, then what? Perjury?
I had no idea until now (I've never even seen a .ir URL before), but one of the images on the Iranian government's Web site features the GNU and Linux mascots. Clicking on that link brings you to http://it.iran.ir/ which features instructions on how to add Iran's CentOS mirror to your yum repos. I think this article would've been much more interesting if it had featured the government of Iran's involvement in the free software community. For one, it would have been true. A government that distributes a free operating system can't be that oppressive, can it?
You wouldn't be trumping the Romney card if you lived in Massachusetts. He practically dismantled our education system and proved he's inept at balancing a checkbook. He did little to get our state out of recession and, in the opinion of many Massachusetts residents, he lied about the state's budget. This Star Tribune article sums up much of this sentiment well. Everything about the man is staged and scripted. I guess a rehearsed weasel is better than what we have now, but can't you raise your standards just a little higher?
GNOME is a desktop environment. Metacity is a window manager.
This is most likely the result of the AOL XMPP Gateway project posted in 2006 at TopCoder: http://www.topcoder.com/tc?module=Static&d1=dev&d2=assembly&d3=det_aolXmppGateway
It's a typo. It should be !donoevil
Comes with built-in music, too!
Never again will a third-world child need to udder the phrase, "I gotta have more cowbell."
Funny, I've always used “tertiary”. I'd never even heard of “ternary” until I saw it one day on the Internets.
jkrise for President!
Troll??! WTF? How did this get past meta-moderation??
So then net radio stations should just stay away from SoundExchange artists altogether and find a way to deliver royalties directly to the artists that are left.
How regular soap works, from Wikipedia:
First, a little education for you, courtesy of Wikipedia: (emphasis mine)With that out of the way...Why should people who do business with Microsoft get it “free twice”, as you put it, but everyone else shouldn't? Tax dollars/license fees are still paying for the online hosting and distribution of this content.I personally wouldn't see an issue with that. The key phrase you used is “calling it even”. Everyone would have the same access to the re-aired content, regardless of their personal commercial and political preferences regarding computing. However, I'm not a license-fee-paying BBC viewer or listener, so my opinion on that doesn't really matter. I'll bet there are viewers and listeners who do pay the license fee who do want content to be available and accessible for no additional fee. These are the people the BBC answers to.
When a government agency introduces outrageous requirements that force people to do business with a single corporation in order to get access to a service, that is an example of either corruption or incompetence. The BBC are punishing people who aren't Microsoft customers by denying them access through technical means to the content that's distributed through their Web site and playable with iPlayer. Like it or not, the British populace has no choice but to fund the hosting of the iPlayer content if they own televisions.
Does that sound like the BBC is being “free from both political and commercial influence” to you?Do you also think the issues surrounding ODF usage in government are stupid, or fueled by cheap, lazy communists? It's the same issue, just packaged differently. I pay my government through tax money. Therefore, I have a right to any service the government furnishes to the general public for which I've paid. As a government agency, it is the BBC's obligation to cater to every person who pays them the TV tax, which is pretty much everybody.
It all boils down to equal taxation without equal consideration and representation. The BBC's viewers and listeners have spoken. As a corporation that “answers only to its viewers and listeners”, the BBC needs to be held accountable, one way or another.
The American Revolution was started over these same principles. Petty? Communist? We'll let history answer that question.
...except that the iPlayer content is funded by the British “TV tax”. Free (gratis)? Hardly.
If I lived in the UK and was forced to pay for a TV license (instated by the BBC), I would expect to have equal access to the programming for which I payed, regardless of my operating system and browser of choice. I choose freedom by using free software, so I would be ineligible to make use of a service for which I've already paid.
Government agencies forcing people to do business with monopolistic corporations? Yeah, that's definitely protest-worthy.
From TFA:
If you've been a Debian user for six years, then you should understand the hype. I, too, am a Debian user. I find the Debian way to simply be superior. I'll take Synaptic/Aptitude over RPM/Yum any day, and while I do like the idea behind Portage, I have better things to do than to wait for my entire OS to compile.
I've been using Ubuntu (which is Debian) for about a year now. I use it because it's more up-to-date than vanilla Debian, yet it's still stable enough for my needs.
I use Debian stable on production servers that I need up 100% of the time. On these servers, I really don't need bleeding-edge features, so Debian's long release cycle is fine in this scenario.
I use Ubuntu [whatever stable is currently called] on my PCs because it's stable enough for average PC usage, yet it has more current software. My desktops and laptops are partly there to serve as “toys”, so I want newer features on them. If my laptop crashes and I absolutely have to reboot, big deal, I'll live.
I did use gNewSense on my main desktop PC, but it was lacking in features that I needed, and there were no plans at the time to create a Feisty-based gNewSense, so I moved back to Ubuntu. I just disable the multiverse repository, so it's good enough for me for now (although I will be switching to “Gobuntu”, and then most likely back to gNewSense when it manages to keep up with the Ubuntu/“Gobuntu” release cycle).
So, instead of guaranteeing my right to access documents produced by my state's government (born and raised in a Boston suburb), you're suggesting that the State House produce documents in a Microsoft-sponsored document format that may or may not work with my Free software applications? How do you suppose that is going to work? Even documents be ODF and odd documents be OOXML? One department use ODF and another OOXML? I doubt the State House would take the extra time/effort to save all documents in both formats every time.
What if document XYZ that provides an important form that I need is only available in OOXML, and that particular document makes use of a proprietary OOXML feature? I use Free software, so I'm not allowed to view the document? I have to pay Microsoft in order to conduct business with my government?
I'd rather have one standard that's guaranteed to be 100% transparent in order to guarantee unfettered access to government resources.
I don't care for Prince's music much, but this bold move has made me a fan. When is the free CD coming to the US? More importantly, how do I send him money directly as a show of thanks?
From Selling Free Software:
The word “toaster” has a specific definition. It's a device that makes toast. If you decide you want to change your definition of “toaster” to match the definition of “fish”, that doesn't magically turn all toasters into fish.
I think the term you're looking for is “Viewable Source” or “Read-Only Source”. Regardless of what you decide to call it, it's all proprietary, and Open Source Software is software that's not proprietary.
Many people consider qmail to be an Open Source program because the source is viewable by anyone who wants to view it and because the program doesn't cost anything. However, it's not Open Source. From qmail.org:It is true that the source code is viewable for qmail. However, qmail is still a proprietary application. Not Free Software. Remember, “Open Source Software” is a synonym for “Free Software”. If it isn't Free, it isn't Open Source.