RMS himself has said that he would only be okay with getting rid of copyright (and hence the basis on which GPL and its copyleft protection stands), if copyleft itself is written into law - i.e. if redistributing binaries without access to the code becomes illegal.
It's not a war when the other government doesn't mind you being there.
Really? So Vietnam war wasn't a war, and neither was the Soviet war in Afghanistan?
I have a very simple definition of war. If you have a "legitimate military operation" with "legitimate military objectives", then guess what, it's a war.
Just as we can compel you to pay your income tax by force if needed, so we can compel you to get yourself vaccinated. You can protest as much as you want, and you're welcome to "fight us to the death", but judging by the fact that you're still alive, it seems that you have diligently filed your tax returns so far, so I'm going to file it as "just talk".
You don't have a right to not catch diseases from infected people.
In my state, knowingly spreading disease (e.g. by going to the crowds) if you know that you're infected is against the law.
People do have a right to not submit themselves to injections they don't agree with.
No-one has an absolute right to anything. All rights are ultimately balanced against the good of society. That's why free speech does not preclude libel & slander laws, for example, and why RKBA doesn't mean that you have a right to own a cruise missile.
In this particular case, your right to control your body is overridden by the extreme degree of common good that results from mandatory vaccinations, combined with a very low degree of personal invasion that such a vaccination actually entails.
Even a quick search violates your privacy rights. The question is what exactly is "reasonable suspicion". It can't just be a hunch, they have to have some tangible evidence for that.
How is that any different than an X-ray/millimeter-wave/infrared device being used to determine the contents of the vehicles?
The basic idea there is that the dog can't tell anything other than whether you have drugs or not, and 4A is not deemed to be applicable to your criminal activity (i.e. you don't have the right to privacy to evidence of the crime). The reason why your right to privacy is violated in a regular warrantless search is because of all the other things that cops get to see that aren't related to a crime. But if they have a magic device that can only detect evidence and not anything else, then that doesn't affect anything other than evidence and hence is not an infringement. Cops claim that drug-sniffing dogs are such devices.
They can still use a dog, because that doesn't count as a search (for 4A purposes). But now it's only true if they have one at hand already, and do it as part of the traffic stop without extending your detention (because such an extension would be illegal).
There is a lawyer who's doing some nice comics that explain all those intricacies - he has a strip covering dogs.
However, dogs are still BS, for the simple reason that a signal from the dog is considered to be probable cause, which is ridiculous because they can be conditioned quite easily to do so at the handler's signal (and often do it without the signal just to please the handler).
I actually wonder if anyone needs to be paid to handle this stuff. It's a useful service, and hence potentially profitable - why wouldn't the market deal with it? Once we start getting substantial excesses of power from residential solar, the energy companies would be seeking for places to dump it, and one can offer such a thing, for a fee. And then sell that power back to the company when they need it (peak of consumption) at a slightly higher rate. So long as this roundtrip is cheaper than the cheapest generated power, the energy companies would participate.
As the amount of electricity you draw from their generators goes down, they're going to reach the point of needing to charge you a flat fee just for the connection to the power lines, plus the usual fees for actually using their electricity.
Natural gas is already paid separately for the connection and for the gas itself, so adopting such a model wouldn't be breaking any new ground.
I missed the part where you explained why Mexican citizens are entitled to emigrate here. See...they're not.
Sure. And a starving guy who can't find a job is not entitled to the contents of your wallet if he finds it on the street, but you'd have to be a sociopath or a retard to actually blame him for not returning it to you, even if that's a "right thing" to do. Or claiming that he's somehow a bad guy if he doesn't.
Shipping Mexican citizens into the US won't fix the problems in Mexico.
Those Mexican citizens aren't trying to solve the problems of Mexico as a whole. They're trying to solve the problems that they have as individuals.
And, of course, no-one asked them if they want to be citizens of Mexico when they were born, so Mexico is not entitled to having them solve its problems, either.
They have sovereignty
They don't have sovereignty, the Mexican state does. To what extent it actually represents the citizens in general, and these citizens in particular, is a question that you should ask before pursuing this line of argument any further.
I missed the part where you explained why Mexican citizens are entitled to emigrate here. See...they're not.
Shipping Mexican citizens into the US won't fix the problems in Mexico.
Those Mexican citizens aren't trying to solve the problems of Mexico as a whole. They're trying to solve the problems that they have as individuals.
And, of course, no-one asked them if they want to be citizens of Mexico when they were born, so Mexico is not entitled to having them solve its problems, either.
They have sovereignty
They don't have sovereignty, the Mexican state does. To what extent it actually represents the citizens in general, and these citizens in particular, is a question that you should ask before pursuing this line of argument any further.
None of that negates the fact that there is a legal way to immigrate.
Saying that green card lottery is a viable way to legally immigrate is like saying that gambling is a viable way to legally earn money for a living. It's true in a very pedantic way, but practically meaningless.
And you seem to be saying that it is okay to break the law if you don't like it, and the government should simply understand and ignore you breaking the law.
I'm not saying anything of a kind. In fact, I didn't say a single word about what government should or shouldn't do, only about your attitude towards people who break that particular law. I don't know about you, but I know dozens of people who break the law - most of them smoke weed. I don't see why it should affect my opinion of them in any way, since it's obviously a bad and stupid law that I don't have to respect.
Let me make this clear: you are being abused (the terms of H1 visas are effectively abusive for would-be immigrants due to the way they tie you to a specific employer with a very complicated switching process, and reset your green card application if you switch while it's still ongoing), and so you don't like it when other people - who don't get even the abusive option that you do - dodge that?
(And of course being in US as an illegal immigrant is still a very subpar experience to being legal... hell, just try opening a bank account that way!)
The point is, people tout the illegal status of an immigrant as some kind of huge moral character flaw or failure, sufficient in and of itself to treat them as scum. I'm merely point out that it's not true in general, and specifically depends on how easy it is to immigrate legally for the same person, and how strong are the reasons that prompt them to immigrate. As I'm sure you know full well from your own experience, it's not a light decision to take in the first place, and US immigration system in particular is a mess of gigantic proportions with no coherent immigration policy whatsoever - just a confusing mish-mash of random decisions made over the last few decades.
There is always a legal way, it just isn't as quick as the illegal kind.
Can you give an example of an immigration track for an average Mexican, then? What visa he should apply for first etc.
The only thing I can think of is the green card lottery. But it is just that, a lottery, it's not something you can actually rely on to get you there, no matter how long you wait.
They are a pleasant family, don't complain about stuff people do on their own property, are good to have a beer with, and the father shares a hobby with me even if I don't care for Fords. They are here legally and the father and mother goes to work, and their kids don't throw wild parties that result in my mailbox being run over with a mess of trash in my yard.
Suppose that everything was true, except that they were there illegally (because there is no way for them to immigrate legally, which is the case for most Mexicans). Would your opinion of them change?
No, but you can say "This isn't a priority any more, we don't think GNU Hurd got where it needs to be, we think your time is better spent elsewhere".
Sure, but that's essentially it's current state, and everybody knows that. But some people do want to experiment with a microkernel still, and so here we are.
Well, a large company has more senior and chief managers, too. Obviously one guy cutting his paycheck wouldn't make much difference, but several dozen just might.
Well, the standing hypothesis for domestication is that it wasn't really conscious, it just happened to be beneficial for both species - but for wolves first. Presumably they started by scavenging on edible remains left in the vicinity of human camps. The wolves that were less shy (so they approached the camps more) and exhibited less aggressiveness (so they would be chased away less) had an evolutionary advantage in that population, and so they bred for those traits. At some point that could have produced a wolf tame enough for people to take notice and try to consciously domesticate and breed them from there, presumably as hunting companions initially (or maybe even that was originally just a natural symbiosis).
Speaking of MS OpenTech, people just don't understand what it is (or rather, was) about. Back when MS was still in the "dark ages" wrt open source, but slowly coming out of them, OpenTech was set up as an independent org that could work with open source without the fear of "contaminating" MS proper - remember, this was back when Ballmer with his "GPL is a virus" notions was still around, and lawyers were super-paranoid about people copy/pasting some code snippet and inadvertently exposing the code to some OSS license, or a patent claim or something like that. They were even more paranoid when people wanted to contribute something upstream; with a few exceptions, this was something that you had to go to OpenTech to do.
Now that this is no longer the case, and regular devs inside MS are allowed (in fact, actively encouraged) to use and contribute to open source, the legal separation that was the whole point in the first place has lost its relevance. Notice how the announcement specifically notes that this is not about laying people off, just closing down the legal entity.
Yes - and this was based on the assumption that EU commission conclusions were valid. Seeing how they were valid in the past (in e.g. the Microsoft case), it's a reasonable assumption. If not, then that's what we should be discussing.
Note that the guy to whom I initially replied didn't dispute that at all, he just said that they should be able to do whatever the hell they want because it's their product. That was the point I was addressing.
I'm not saying that what they're doing is wrong. I'm saying that, if EU commission findings are correct, then regulating them is the proper course of action (as opposed to "free market will just sort it out").
The consumers are harmed because they end up with fewer choices to pick out of than are actually there. Worse yet, they may not even be aware that the choices they know are not all that is there.
It's truly a horrible sight. The screams of young company branches as they are separated from their parents, the lifeless carcasses of the slaughtered companies as their stock price slowly dribbles down to the ground...
Slashdot Mirror
RMS himself has said that he would only be okay with getting rid of copyright (and hence the basis on which GPL and its copyleft protection stands), if copyleft itself is written into law - i.e. if redistributing binaries without access to the code becomes illegal.
It's not a war when the other government doesn't mind you being there.
Really? So Vietnam war wasn't a war, and neither was the Soviet war in Afghanistan?
I have a very simple definition of war. If you have a "legitimate military operation" with "legitimate military objectives", then guess what, it's a war.
Just as we can compel you to pay your income tax by force if needed, so we can compel you to get yourself vaccinated. You can protest as much as you want, and you're welcome to "fight us to the death", but judging by the fact that you're still alive, it seems that you have diligently filed your tax returns so far, so I'm going to file it as "just talk".
You don't have a right to not catch diseases from infected people.
In my state, knowingly spreading disease (e.g. by going to the crowds) if you know that you're infected is against the law.
People do have a right to not submit themselves to injections they don't agree with.
No-one has an absolute right to anything. All rights are ultimately balanced against the good of society. That's why free speech does not preclude libel & slander laws, for example, and why RKBA doesn't mean that you have a right to own a cruise missile.
In this particular case, your right to control your body is overridden by the extreme degree of common good that results from mandatory vaccinations, combined with a very low degree of personal invasion that such a vaccination actually entails.
Even a quick search violates your privacy rights. The question is what exactly is "reasonable suspicion". It can't just be a hunch, they have to have some tangible evidence for that.
How is that any different than an X-ray/millimeter-wave/infrared device being used to determine the contents of the vehicles?
The basic idea there is that the dog can't tell anything other than whether you have drugs or not, and 4A is not deemed to be applicable to your criminal activity (i.e. you don't have the right to privacy to evidence of the crime). The reason why your right to privacy is violated in a regular warrantless search is because of all the other things that cops get to see that aren't related to a crime. But if they have a magic device that can only detect evidence and not anything else, then that doesn't affect anything other than evidence and hence is not an infringement. Cops claim that drug-sniffing dogs are such devices.
They can still use a dog, because that doesn't count as a search (for 4A purposes). But now it's only true if they have one at hand already, and do it as part of the traffic stop without extending your detention (because such an extension would be illegal).
There is a lawyer who's doing some nice comics that explain all those intricacies - he has a strip covering dogs.
However, dogs are still BS, for the simple reason that a signal from the dog is considered to be probable cause, which is ridiculous because they can be conditioned quite easily to do so at the handler's signal (and often do it without the signal just to please the handler).
Most people really don't want to go back to third world style "power doesn't actually work 24/7 and you keep getting outages when something fails"
You know, some people in US actually have that kind of a deal on the grid...
I actually wonder if anyone needs to be paid to handle this stuff. It's a useful service, and hence potentially profitable - why wouldn't the market deal with it? Once we start getting substantial excesses of power from residential solar, the energy companies would be seeking for places to dump it, and one can offer such a thing, for a fee. And then sell that power back to the company when they need it (peak of consumption) at a slightly higher rate. So long as this roundtrip is cheaper than the cheapest generated power, the energy companies would participate.
As the amount of electricity you draw from their generators goes down, they're going to reach the point of needing to charge you a flat fee just for the connection to the power lines, plus the usual fees for actually using their electricity.
Natural gas is already paid separately for the connection and for the gas itself, so adopting such a model wouldn't be breaking any new ground.
I missed the part where you explained why Mexican citizens are entitled to emigrate here. See...they're not.
Sure. And a starving guy who can't find a job is not entitled to the contents of your wallet if he finds it on the street, but you'd have to be a sociopath or a retard to actually blame him for not returning it to you, even if that's a "right thing" to do. Or claiming that he's somehow a bad guy if he doesn't.
Shipping Mexican citizens into the US won't fix the problems in Mexico.
Those Mexican citizens aren't trying to solve the problems of Mexico as a whole. They're trying to solve the problems that they have as individuals.
And, of course, no-one asked them if they want to be citizens of Mexico when they were born, so Mexico is not entitled to having them solve its problems, either.
They have sovereignty
They don't have sovereignty, the Mexican state does. To what extent it actually represents the citizens in general, and these citizens in particular, is a question that you should ask before pursuing this line of argument any further.
I missed the part where you explained why Mexican citizens are entitled to emigrate here. See...they're not.
Shipping Mexican citizens into the US won't fix the problems in Mexico.
Those Mexican citizens aren't trying to solve the problems of Mexico as a whole. They're trying to solve the problems that they have as individuals.
And, of course, no-one asked them if they want to be citizens of Mexico when they were born, so Mexico is not entitled to having them solve its problems, either.
They have sovereignty
They don't have sovereignty, the Mexican state does. To what extent it actually represents the citizens in general, and these citizens in particular, is a question that you should ask before pursuing this line of argument any further.
None of that negates the fact that there is a legal way to immigrate.
Saying that green card lottery is a viable way to legally immigrate is like saying that gambling is a viable way to legally earn money for a living. It's true in a very pedantic way, but practically meaningless.
And you seem to be saying that it is okay to break the law if you don't like it, and the government should simply understand and ignore you breaking the law.
I'm not saying anything of a kind. In fact, I didn't say a single word about what government should or shouldn't do, only about your attitude towards people who break that particular law. I don't know about you, but I know dozens of people who break the law - most of them smoke weed. I don't see why it should affect my opinion of them in any way, since it's obviously a bad and stupid law that I don't have to respect.
I am an H1B as well, so I can relate. But ...
Let me make this clear: you are being abused (the terms of H1 visas are effectively abusive for would-be immigrants due to the way they tie you to a specific employer with a very complicated switching process, and reset your green card application if you switch while it's still ongoing), and so you don't like it when other people - who don't get even the abusive option that you do - dodge that?
(And of course being in US as an illegal immigrant is still a very subpar experience to being legal ... hell, just try opening a bank account that way!)
The point is, people tout the illegal status of an immigrant as some kind of huge moral character flaw or failure, sufficient in and of itself to treat them as scum. I'm merely point out that it's not true in general, and specifically depends on how easy it is to immigrate legally for the same person, and how strong are the reasons that prompt them to immigrate. As I'm sure you know full well from your own experience, it's not a light decision to take in the first place, and US immigration system in particular is a mess of gigantic proportions with no coherent immigration policy whatsoever - just a confusing mish-mash of random decisions made over the last few decades.
There is always a legal way, it just isn't as quick as the illegal kind.
Can you give an example of an immigration track for an average Mexican, then? What visa he should apply for first etc.
The only thing I can think of is the green card lottery. But it is just that, a lottery, it's not something you can actually rely on to get you there, no matter how long you wait.
They are a pleasant family, don't complain about stuff people do on their own property, are good to have a beer with, and the father shares a hobby with me even if I don't care for Fords. They are here legally and the father and mother goes to work, and their kids don't throw wild parties that result in my mailbox being run over with a mess of trash in my yard.
Suppose that everything was true, except that they were there illegally (because there is no way for them to immigrate legally, which is the case for most Mexicans). Would your opinion of them change?
No, but you can say "This isn't a priority any more, we don't think GNU Hurd got where it needs to be, we think your time is better spent elsewhere".
Sure, but that's essentially it's current state, and everybody knows that. But some people do want to experiment with a microkernel still, and so here we are.
Well, a large company has more senior and chief managers, too. Obviously one guy cutting his paycheck wouldn't make much difference, but several dozen just might.
Well, the standing hypothesis for domestication is that it wasn't really conscious, it just happened to be beneficial for both species - but for wolves first. Presumably they started by scavenging on edible remains left in the vicinity of human camps. The wolves that were less shy (so they approached the camps more) and exhibited less aggressiveness (so they would be chased away less) had an evolutionary advantage in that population, and so they bred for those traits. At some point that could have produced a wolf tame enough for people to take notice and try to consciously domesticate and breed them from there, presumably as hunting companions initially (or maybe even that was originally just a natural symbiosis).
Speaking of MS OpenTech, people just don't understand what it is (or rather, was) about. Back when MS was still in the "dark ages" wrt open source, but slowly coming out of them, OpenTech was set up as an independent org that could work with open source without the fear of "contaminating" MS proper - remember, this was back when Ballmer with his "GPL is a virus" notions was still around, and lawyers were super-paranoid about people copy/pasting some code snippet and inadvertently exposing the code to some OSS license, or a patent claim or something like that. They were even more paranoid when people wanted to contribute something upstream; with a few exceptions, this was something that you had to go to OpenTech to do.
Now that this is no longer the case, and regular devs inside MS are allowed (in fact, actively encouraged) to use and contribute to open source, the legal separation that was the whole point in the first place has lost its relevance. Notice how the announcement specifically notes that this is not about laying people off, just closing down the legal entity.
Yes - and this was based on the assumption that EU commission conclusions were valid. Seeing how they were valid in the past (in e.g. the Microsoft case), it's a reasonable assumption. If not, then that's what we should be discussing.
Note that the guy to whom I initially replied didn't dispute that at all, he just said that they should be able to do whatever the hell they want because it's their product. That was the point I was addressing.
I'm not saying that what they're doing is wrong. I'm saying that, if EU commission findings are correct, then regulating them is the proper course of action (as opposed to "free market will just sort it out").
The consumers are harmed because they end up with fewer choices to pick out of than are actually there. Worse yet, they may not even be aware that the choices they know are not all that is there.
It's truly a horrible sight. The screams of young company branches as they are separated from their parents, the lifeless carcasses of the slaughtered companies as their stock price slowly dribbles down to the ground...