I don't see that at all. He might be a fanatic, but I really don't see that as a problem. Goldwater said that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice", and I have to agree. You say he isn't interested in progress. For what values of "progress"? He has stated time and again that he doesn't define success as how many people use free Software. He isn't interested in getting as many people as possible to use GNU/Linux distros, but simply making sure users have the freedoms laid out in the GNU manifesto. As people use loopholes in the GPL to remove those freedoms, he should attempt to close those loopholes to protect the freedoms.
As far as him "resolving the conflicts between concerned entities", I will assume you mean making the GPL more palatable towards interests who believe the draft GPL v3 is too restrictive. If its too restrictive for your ends, then don't use it. It is not like Stallman is revoking the ability to use GPL v2 in any newer projects. Now, if you're worried about factionalization and adoption issues, that is your problem not RMS's. It is not his job nor his wish to create a license that most people will use without objection. It is his job to make sure the four freedoms are protected at all costs. I will now leave you with the 2nd half of that Goldwater quote: "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
I, for one, welcome Stallman's extremism in the defense of my liberty and his unwillingness to compromise his ideals in pursuit of justice.
Well, this is a case where you shouldn't get what you want.
Why shouldn't I get what I want? I'm a citizen of the United States of America, and my voice is equal to all others regarding government policy. The law should respect the will of the citizens, while working inside a constitutional framework. I'd be happy to believe my positions aren't of the majority
I don't want to punish people for being rich. I want to punish people who are rich that don't do anything but collect dividend checks. Our current tax code puts investment above work. I want to put work above investment.
After further review of the site, I'd actually change a hell of a lot. They want to tax necessities. That doesn't fly. Also, estate and capital gains taxes are abolished. No deal. Social Security and Medicare. Right out.
It was in the book "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig. Apparently Fox wanted a very large sum of money (I thought it was over $50,000) for a license to use that clip in the documentary.
You speak of obvious fair use. In many ways fair use is just like the problem with patents. The patent might be obvious or have prior art, but you can't invalidate it since it would take a small army of lawyers and a few suitcases of cash to do so. Similarly, the use of a clip may be obvious fair use, but if the copyright holder decides he wants to go after you, you're toast. A trial will most likely be more expensive than the licensing fee. The cheap option in both cases is to either not use the patented technique or not use the clip.
And why, exactly would that be a bad thing?Not much of a bad thing, which is why I put it in quotes. I could see some politicians getting uppity about people like me living off the government dole. Realistically, I don't think you could get a bill passed that gave everyone a monthly check. Actually, once I wrote that, framing the program in those terms would pretty much assure its approval! Its the $300 rebate check all over again, only you get it EVERY MONTH.
I'm pretty much for it, although I'd like to tweak the percentages here and there. Then again, it conflicts with my dream of seeing the federal government shrink drastically and power returned to the states. I'm not so much against an income tax as I am a labor tax. Work earnings shouldn't be taxed a penny, no matter how much you money you make selling your labor. Now the moving money around in a circle deal should be taxed at a high rate, IMO.
Just to get us a bit off topic here, I must say the "Fair Tax" idea is very appealing to me and I'm pretty damned liberal. I agree with the idea that a sales tax is inherently easier to collect, and the proponents of the idea have eliminated the inherent regressiveness of a sales tax, which I like as well. There are a few problems I have with it (the rate should aim to be higher among the rich), but in theory, I think its better than the system we have. I could see some "abuse" with it though. I, for one, would simply live like a pauper until I saved up enough money to start making decent returns on conservative investments. With that monthly tax check coming, it seems like I could do it in short order.
So, if I write a book about an alien invasion where the aliens are using biological weapons, sell the publication rights to a publisher, and you buy the printed book, I cannot tell you that you can only read it in the wee hours of the morning, or anything like that. I also cannot tell you that you can't give that book you just bought away as a present, or sell it to a used bookstore, as you own the paper it is printed on, and can do what you like with it in that regard.
Unless your art is software. Then, for some crazy reason, you can attach a license to it and then do this. Book licenses are unenforceable by the doctrine of first sale, but, yet, software licenses (EULAs) get different treatment. Hmm...
We already have troops there. Officially, they exist because the Korean war never ended; we're still in ceasefire mode. Unofficially, they are there to act as a tripwire. If Pyongyang decides to start shelling Seoul or make a move across the DMZ, our troops will die. That'd be enough to stir up the masses to support a shooting war against the DPRK.
Lets put it this way, if the DPRK does decide to go into Seoul, we're either getting out of Iraq pronto or there'll be a draft.
Being a nuclear power almost guarantees that your country won't get invaded.
That isn't true under all circumstances. You'll still get invaded if you have no credible 2nd strike capability (ie. I'll nuke your nukes). You'll also get invaded if your enemies believe you aren't a rational actor.
No because this does not criminalize a behavior that was not criminal before hand. The bill states that the definition of an "unlawful enemy combatant" is either (i) or someone who was already determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal to be an unlawful combatant. What this does is retroactively validate any decisions made by the military tribunals set up by Bush without authorization by Congress. Basically, Congress put this definition in the law because they didn't want all of the people who were already found to be unlawful combatants under the unauthorized tribunals to have to go through the process again. So Congress is just retroactively authorizing the unlawful tribunals.
While I think this sort of legislation is bullshit, it isn't a violation of the ban on ex post facto laws... at least not by any traditional reading of the clause.
I read the bill and didn't see anything that was retroactively criminalizing anything, so I assumed that you were talking about the bailouts that are given to the people who engaged in torture before the bill was passed. Please cite a specific section number and paragraph, and I'll see if I agree with you:-)
You may not have a proper constitution, but you still have rights. A quick glance at the Magna Carta says that you have the right to defend your property, the right to refuse to build a bridge across a river, etc.
In techie speak, the US constitution is default-deny, followed by a list of exceptions.
True. The only problem is that it is default-deny with a list of exceptions and then a list of more denials (see powers denied to the feds and then powers granted to the feds). The problem is that neither is exhaustive, so people are understandably confused as to what is and isn't allowed. The Bill of Rights made a half hearted attempt with the 9th and 10th Amendments to let people know they didn't mean the Bill to be a listing of rights, but a singling out of specific rights. Sadly, the 9th and 10th Amendments are the most ignored clauses in our Constitution.
In a similar issue, our federal code can be described as running off of diffs for around 200 years. I say its time to do a complete rewrite of both.
What our friend is trying to say is that the founders didn't think to explicitly write that the "BoR" was to be read as a foreign policy document since they believed that such values were "self-evident". I don't think he's correct, but it is a reasonable thing to say.
I would be interested to hear your theories on where rights come from. For instance how is property a right and killing people not a right? How does one know what is a right and what is a privledge? Is there an exhaustive list of rights? How would one go about adding or subtracting (if possible) rights from that list?
I'm not trolling or trying to bait you. I just am interested in your ideas.
Why should I, as a healthy, contributing member of society, have to pay for this person to sit on their ass, when they are perfectly healthy, and capabale of getting a job, and at least contributing something to society?
If the person is simply lazy, then yes, they should be kicked the to curb and told "good riddance". Now if there are really zero jobs in their area, then we have a problem. The government should try to make sure everyone who wants a job can have a job. This is not always the case.
The United States and her citizens were able to do just fine without welfare until the Great Depression
Really? For certain values of fine, I suppose. I don't know the poverty numbers from 1776 - 1929, but I don't think it was as rosy as you tend to think. And then, AFAIK, society was different then. Communities were closer knit and people were happier to help.
Basically, why should I pay for that welfare mother to have another child so she can increase her welfare check? Seems like she's taking advantage of me, which really pisses me off.
The welfare is for the child, not for the mother. I haven't really found a good solution to this problem. I don't like, as you don't like, having to pay for a welfare mother working on her 8th kid, but I really don't want to have children born to a mother who is effectively using them as an ATM from getting the care they need. These children didn't ask to be born to a shitty mom and dad (if he's still around), and they can't fend for themselves, so they'd seem to be in the "disabled" category and should get government assistance.
If I may quote the The Declaration of Independence: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
It is a little known fact that the first draft went like this:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes... and will never be changed so long as the American Idol competition is the lead story on the local news
You'd have an excellent point, except for the fact that it (apparently) isn't true.
I won't debate whether it is true or not. The overriding point of the matter is that not wearing a seat belt does not increase the risk of injury to other drivers in any real way. It is my right to be as safe or as unsafe as I want to be when doing anything that is of no risk or consequence to anyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see that at all. He might be a fanatic, but I really don't see that as a problem. Goldwater said that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice", and I have to agree. You say he isn't interested in progress. For what values of "progress"? He has stated time and again that he doesn't define success as how many people use free Software. He isn't interested in getting as many people as possible to use GNU/Linux distros, but simply making sure users have the freedoms laid out in the GNU manifesto. As people use loopholes in the GPL to remove those freedoms, he should attempt to close those loopholes to protect the freedoms.
As far as him "resolving the conflicts between concerned entities", I will assume you mean making the GPL more palatable towards interests who believe the draft GPL v3 is too restrictive. If its too restrictive for your ends, then don't use it. It is not like Stallman is revoking the ability to use GPL v2 in any newer projects. Now, if you're worried about factionalization and adoption issues, that is your problem not RMS's. It is not his job nor his wish to create a license that most people will use without objection. It is his job to make sure the four freedoms are protected at all costs. I will now leave you with the 2nd half of that Goldwater quote: "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
I, for one, welcome Stallman's extremism in the defense of my liberty and his unwillingness to compromise his ideals in pursuit of justice.
#1 has to be Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing.
Also, check out #9, Custer's Revenge, for some hot pr0n. Wow, were they ahead of their time or what?
I don't want to punish people for being rich. I want to punish people who are rich that don't do anything but collect dividend checks. Our current tax code puts investment above work. I want to put work above investment.
After further review of the site, I'd actually change a hell of a lot. They want to tax necessities. That doesn't fly. Also, estate and capital gains taxes are abolished. No deal. Social Security and Medicare. Right out.
It was in the book "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig. Apparently Fox wanted a very large sum of money (I thought it was over $50,000) for a license to use that clip in the documentary.
You speak of obvious fair use. In many ways fair use is just like the problem with patents. The patent might be obvious or have prior art, but you can't invalidate it since it would take a small army of lawyers and a few suitcases of cash to do so. Similarly, the use of a clip may be obvious fair use, but if the copyright holder decides he wants to go after you, you're toast. A trial will most likely be more expensive than the licensing fee. The cheap option in both cases is to either not use the patented technique or not use the clip.
And why, exactly would that be a bad thing?Not much of a bad thing, which is why I put it in quotes. I could see some politicians getting uppity about people like me living off the government dole. Realistically, I don't think you could get a bill passed that gave everyone a monthly check. Actually, once I wrote that, framing the program in those terms would pretty much assure its approval! Its the $300 rebate check all over again, only you get it EVERY MONTH.
I'm pretty much for it, although I'd like to tweak the percentages here and there. Then again, it conflicts with my dream of seeing the federal government shrink drastically and power returned to the states. I'm not so much against an income tax as I am a labor tax. Work earnings shouldn't be taxed a penny, no matter how much you money you make selling your labor. Now the moving money around in a circle deal should be taxed at a high rate, IMO.
Just to get us a bit off topic here, I must say the "Fair Tax" idea is very appealing to me and I'm pretty damned liberal. I agree with the idea that a sales tax is inherently easier to collect, and the proponents of the idea have eliminated the inherent regressiveness of a sales tax, which I like as well. There are a few problems I have with it (the rate should aim to be higher among the rich), but in theory, I think its better than the system we have. I could see some "abuse" with it though. I, for one, would simply live like a pauper until I saved up enough money to start making decent returns on conservative investments. With that monthly tax check coming, it seems like I could do it in short order.
Actually, there are differing opinions on the validity of EULAs. According to wikipedia:
The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "license" and "not sold" arguments, while most other circuits do not.
We'll have to see a SCOTUS decision to reconcile these conflicting decisions.
Whatever happened to the *beatles-beatles* guy?
We already have troops there. Officially, they exist because the Korean war never ended; we're still in ceasefire mode. Unofficially, they are there to act as a tripwire. If Pyongyang decides to start shelling Seoul or make a move across the DMZ, our troops will die. That'd be enough to stir up the masses to support a shooting war against the DPRK.
Lets put it this way, if the DPRK does decide to go into Seoul, we're either getting out of Iraq pronto or there'll be a draft.
The DPRK/Kim Jong-Il is neither of these.
No because this does not criminalize a behavior that was not criminal before hand. The bill states that the definition of an "unlawful enemy combatant" is either (i) or someone who was already determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal to be an unlawful combatant. What this does is retroactively validate any decisions made by the military tribunals set up by Bush without authorization by Congress. Basically, Congress put this definition in the law because they didn't want all of the people who were already found to be unlawful combatants under the unauthorized tribunals to have to go through the process again. So Congress is just retroactively authorizing the unlawful tribunals.
... at least not by any traditional reading of the clause.
While I think this sort of legislation is bullshit, it isn't a violation of the ban on ex post facto laws
I read the bill and didn't see anything that was retroactively criminalizing anything, so I assumed that you were talking about the bailouts that are given to the people who engaged in torture before the bill was passed. Please cite a specific section number and paragraph, and I'll see if I agree with you :-)
You may not have a proper constitution, but you still have rights. A quick glance at the Magna Carta says that you have the right to defend your property, the right to refuse to build a bridge across a river, etc.
In a similar issue, our federal code can be described as running off of diffs for around 200 years. I say its time to do a complete rewrite of both.
What our friend is trying to say is that the founders didn't think to explicitly write that the "BoR" was to be read as a foreign policy document since they believed that such values were "self-evident". I don't think he's correct, but it is a reasonable thing to say.
Well with a name like GigsVT ... whoda thunk it?
The courts have regularly upheld that decriminalizing an action retroactively is not an ex post facto law.
Yeah, but getting it from the source doesn't give you that "OMG WAREZ" feeling that downloading off a shady BitTorrent tracker does.
It'd be a better troll if I was Jewish.
I would be interested to hear your theories on where rights come from. For instance how is property a right and killing people not a right? How does one know what is a right and what is a privledge? Is there an exhaustive list of rights? How would one go about adding or subtracting (if possible) rights from that list?
I'm not trolling or trying to bait you. I just am interested in your ideas.
Really? For certain values of fine, I suppose. I don't know the poverty numbers from 1776 - 1929, but I don't think it was as rosy as you tend to think. And then, AFAIK, society was different then. Communities were closer knit and people were happier to help.
The welfare is for the child, not for the mother. I haven't really found a good solution to this problem. I don't like, as you don't like, having to pay for a welfare mother working on her 8th kid, but I really don't want to have children born to a mother who is effectively using them as an ATM from getting the care they need. These children didn't ask to be born to a shitty mom and dad (if he's still around), and they can't fend for themselves, so they'd seem to be in the "disabled" category and should get government assistance.
It is a little known fact that the first draft went like this:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes