Since when has Congress cared about the constitution?
Before you mod me troll: Read Section 8 of the the American Constitution. As far as I understand Section 8 it is a list of the only things Congress is allowed to do. (If Congress where allowed to do whatever they wanted to "pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" why would those that wrote it bother listing all those powers, like the one parent was referring to, in the subsections?) To me, it seems like they do a lot more than what the Constitution allows them to do. (Disclaimer: I am European and English is not my first language, so I could have read it wrong)
You are correct that Plasmacutter is advocating the abolishment of (at least some) private property rights. (the right I have to decide what others are allowed to do and say on my website, my land and in my house) Does that make him a communist? The NRA is also advocating the abolishment of some private property rights when they support laws that makes it illegal to forbid guns on your property. Does that make the NRA communists?
I have been working on a project that I will probably release as free for non-commercial use, pay a license fee for commercial use, and release the source code. I would like to use the AGPL, but I do need some income from my project and (A)GPL with alternative license options may not do this for me.
If the project is a Web-app (like the article is about) I think that the AGPL could really work well. AGPL requires that all users interacting remotely with the app over a network are offered a way to get the corresponding source. (Section 13 of AGPL v3) I think a lot of commercial users would be willing to pay to avoid having a "download the source" link in their application.
You make one big assumption here: that the people working on one thing are interested in and capable to work on the competitors thing and that their work will be accepted. Perhaps someone had a great idea, but since MS did not hire him or let him implement it it was lost. Sometimes it is hard to know if something is a good idea before you try it in the marketplace. Competition also force people to innovate faster then when there is none.
The first passage simply extends my point: it is not in the purview of *humans* to visit violence upon one another; that, at best, is God's job.
As far as I can tell all passages you use against violence refer to violent vengeance. Violent vengeance is a subset of violence, not all violence there is. Self defense is another type of violence. Romans 12, 18 begins: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you..." before it give the commandment to "live peaceably with all men." So yes, this forbids the initial use of violence. But does it forbid self defense when someone else has started the violence?
Same, BTW, for the third passage (vengeance is not *yours*; at best it rests with some God-ordained authority, if not God Hisownself).
I agree that violent vengeance is not for the individual. As you can see in Rom 13:4 the government (ruler) is supposed to do it. If they fail to do their job, God will take care of it.
Also, it should be noted that the epistolary rulings diverge significantly from Jesus' teachings.
Only if you don't understand them.;) As Peter said: "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2. Peter 3:15-16) (As an example many Christians today believe they can ignore what Jesus said in Matthew 5:19-20 because they do this)
The Luke passage, which is often trotted out in defense of a violent Christianity, is more likely than not a metaphor (one's beliefs are a sword that divides the good from the bad, etc.).
Have you read the context? The verse before: "And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing." He is referring to another time He sent them out. So you mean that last time He sent them out they did not have their beliefs?
Do not get me wrong. The Bible forbids individuals to initialize violence. It also give the government strict rules for when it is allowed to initialize violence.
Seems like you have only seen a small part of the entire picture. Here are some other parts I hope will help you complete it:
"If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." Romans 12, 18-20
"Then said he (Jesus) unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36
"For he (the ruler) is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Romans 13, 4
shouldn't we start thinking more responsible towards how technology advancement can occur?
Some will claim that to break it is the only responsible ting to do when facing DRM. Not all technological advancements are good. DRM removes control over real property from its owners. You could therefore claim that advancements that break DRM are good and those that enhance DRM are bad (if those are their only consequences).
yes, i am now waiting for the open-source (no patents) advocates to bring their artillery in, but common, do think about this.
This is, by the way, not about time limited artificial government granted monopoles on ideas (patents). It is about eternal artificial government granted monopoles on reading information that has some form of DRM (part of DMCA).
Different licences for different purposes.
Sure, but sometimes those purposes are compatible while the licenses are not. That is the problematic fragmentation. Take for example a look at Apache 2.0 vs GPL 2. GPLv3 fixes this, so now it is possible to use Apache 2.0 code in GPLv3 projects.
I have a theory on what caused it. The republicans are to elect who get to run as a republican presidential candidate soon. One candidate, Ron Paul, gets mutch of his support from tech people. Many tech people read Slashdot. About the same time as the racist comments started to multiply a campaign to label him racist started. The racist commentsoften mention this candidate. It could of course be a coincidence, but if not: Slashdot, meet politics. Politics, meet Slashdot!
"We are the people, this is what we want, no excuses, make it happen."
The problem is that the people will end up paying for that one way or another. If the government pays, it will take the money from the people by taxes. If the money are taken from companies, the people will pay by more expensive goods an services and a lower share value for those that invest in shares or that depends on investments in shares for things like their pensions. A more moral thing would be to let those that want it pay for it directly, and not force everybody else to do it. A nice start to get more competition (the best way for prices to go down and/or quality up) would be to get rid of the FCC so it would be easier to compete.
At least in my experience Java programs are not so slow as they used to be. Have you tried using a newer VM? When it comes to looking out of place you are referring to Swing. You can use other GUI toolkits. Even QT. It's called Jambi.
The most zealous Christian would most likely die unnoticed by those who are not Christians,
According to Jesus it is not so: "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." (Matthew 24:9, KJV)
So any time that is wasted on these licensing shenanigans is a significant amount of time that isn't being used to actually improve the software itself. And it's more beneficial to more people to have the software working and/or improved, rather than some absurd licensing conditions being met.
Why should the developer care about what is "more beneficial to more people" instead of "what he wants"?
Which is exactly the same thing, because a young boy is equally capable of making said decision as a pregnant woman is about making hers, right?
The correct way to translate the situation from a pro life point of view would be: "because a young boy is equally capable of making said decision as a unborn child is about making his/hers" (Since the unborn child don't choose at all the young boy is more capable, but I try to keep as few changes as possible)
tell us the official word again why USA should have the biggest pile of nukes/WMDs in the world, while attacking/sanctioning/threatening other countries for possessing/trying to develop any?
I am European, but the answer seems simple to me: if USA has nukes it is not a threat to the USA. If allies of USA has nukes, it is not a big threat to the USA. If enemies of the USA has nukes on the other hand, it is a big treat to the USA. In other words it is in the USA's interest to have nukes, but deny their enemy to have nukes. It should also be said that if USA could monopolize nukes it would make them more powerful. Some people believe that a government should do what is in their country's best interest instead of doing what is not in their own interest, and they seem to have power in the USA.
Ask yourself why righties hated Clinton. The only thing they ever talked about was Monica.
Did they never mention the Waco_Siege or Ruby_Ridge? I find that hard to believe, since that was what made them so scared of the federal government that many joined militias. However I may not have the entire picture since I live here in Europe. If I am wrong and the US right cares more about Monica than these incidents feel free to correct me. (I know they used her as a way to try to get rid of him, but I always had the impression that Monica was not the main reason for trying)
What is released under the GPL stay under the GPL, as long as someone has copies under the GPL. However, Apple could stop to release as GPL and start to only release under new terms if they wanted to. Note that Apple have said they will continue to release CUPS under the gpl.
Completely legal. CUPS is licensed under GPL, and GPL give you the right to fork. However I do not see a point in forking, since Apple have said they will continue to release under the GPL. Issues might show up later, but for now there are no problems.
God demands faith. God does not provide proof, because proof kills faith.
That might be true for what ever deity you worship, but The God of the Bible has defined what sort of faith He requires: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 (KJV))
First, it was roman soldiers that crucified Him. Secound, according to the Bible (the book that Falwell based his beliefs on), the Jews did not kill Jesus any more than everybody else did (and still do). (If limited atonement is correct, only the Christians did it) The Bible says that "...he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."* From this it is clear that it was our sin, past, present and future, that killed Him. I should also add that He Himself choose to die in our place. The Jews did not force Him. What made Him do it was His love: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."** (remember that He is God, compare John 1:10 and Genesis 1:1)
One of the complaints is about USB device support. This distro may have it good, but the next doesn't. If the combined labor of the Linux distros were put behind just a few, this complaint would disappear. It is possible to have too many distros.
What makes you think that people would be willing to work on those few, as opposed to not work at all? Just because someone has an interest in one area and are willing to work on it does not mean that they automatically has an interest in a related area and are willing to work on that. A reason for the different distros are different goals for the software, different personality types etc. Not to add that the competition keeps everybody working hard to beat the others.
Seriously though, I've been thinking about a MMORPG collective for serious gamers. A few thousand true role players could easily afford to go in on an adequate server and you could give people memberships for content contribution. It could work, but it would be a lot of effort and there would be no profit in it, so I don't see it happening. I would join something like that.
Have you tried Planeshift?. Works on GNU/Linux, OS X and Windows. The software is free software, but the gamedata are unfree.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when has Congress cared about the constitution?
Before you mod me troll: Read Section 8 of the the American Constitution. As far as I understand Section 8 it is a list of the only things Congress is allowed to do. (If Congress where allowed to do whatever they wanted to "pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" why would those that wrote it bother listing all those powers, like the one parent was referring to, in the subsections?) To me, it seems like they do a lot more than what the Constitution allows them to do. (Disclaimer: I am European and English is not my first language, so I could have read it wrong)
You are correct that Plasmacutter is advocating the abolishment of (at least some) private property rights. (the right I have to decide what others are allowed to do and say on my website, my land and in my house) Does that make him a communist? The NRA is also advocating the abolishment of some private property rights when they support laws that makes it illegal to forbid guns on your property. Does that make the NRA communists?
If the project is a Web-app (like the article is about) I think that the AGPL could really work well. AGPL requires that all users interacting remotely with the app over a network are offered a way to get the corresponding source. (Section 13 of AGPL v3) I think a lot of commercial users would be willing to pay to avoid having a "download the source" link in their application.
You make one big assumption here: that the people working on one thing are interested in and capable to work on the competitors thing and that their work will be accepted. Perhaps someone had a great idea, but since MS did not hire him or let him implement it it was lost. Sometimes it is hard to know if something is a good idea before you try it in the marketplace. Competition also force people to innovate faster then when there is none.
Do not get me wrong. The Bible forbids individuals to initialize violence. It also give the government strict rules for when it is allowed to initialize violence.
NOK is the ISO 4217 code for Norwegian Kroner, the currency of Norway. Nokia vil pay 16 NOK pr share for Trolltech.
I have a theory on what caused it. The republicans are to elect who get to run as a republican presidential candidate soon. One candidate, Ron Paul, gets mutch of his support from tech people. Many tech people read Slashdot. About the same time as the racist comments started to multiply a campaign to label him racist started. The racist comments often mention this candidate. It could of course be a coincidence, but if not: Slashdot, meet politics. Politics, meet Slashdot!
In fact Safari, or to be more specific Webkit, already has support for parts of html5. For example it already support in nightly builds.
At least in my experience Java programs are not so slow as they used to be. Have you tried using a newer VM? When it comes to looking out of place you are referring to Swing. You can use other GUI toolkits. Even QT. It's called Jambi.
What is released under the GPL stay under the GPL, as long as someone has copies under the GPL. However, Apple could stop to release as GPL and start to only release under new terms if they wanted to. Note that Apple have said they will continue to release CUPS under the gpl.
Completely legal. CUPS is licensed under GPL, and GPL give you the right to fork. However I do not see a point in forking, since Apple have said they will continue to release under the GPL. Issues might show up later, but for now there are no problems.
First, it was roman soldiers that crucified Him. Secound, according to the Bible (the book that Falwell based his beliefs on), the Jews did not kill Jesus any more than everybody else did (and still do). (If limited atonement is correct, only the Christians did it) The Bible says that "...he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."* From this it is clear that it was our sin, past, present and future, that killed Him. I should also add that He Himself choose to die in our place. The Jews did not force Him. What made Him do it was His love: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."** (remember that He is God, compare John 1:10 and Genesis 1:1)
* Isaiah 53:5 (quoted from King James Version (1769))
** Romans 5:8 (quoted from King James Version (1769))