with a quite functional win32 emulated closed source system in mplayer, doubtlessly by giving us a shady, spyware-riddled bloated buggy closed source app... worse than their windows piece of crap. Unless Linux multimedia apps were somehow their secret core competence and this one will be better?
I apologize for the delay in responding. Let's consolidate this back down to one thread, here.
(Ignorant. Hah. That's a funny crack from someone who tries to pass off Conservative think tank position papers which admit they have no scientific basis in the first page as "pretty clear results." Ignorance is the most charitable excuse I could think of for that kind of behavior.)
Anti-market means reductions in economic freedom. There have been plenty of research like this one, and the results are pretty clear: economic freedom combined with well-functioning institutions enhance economic growth.
This isn't research. It's an academic propaganda piece produced by the Heritage foundation, by people who only get paid if they reach a certain conclusion.
It doesn't give any results. It says so in it's first page.
Thus I, and anyone else who bothers to follow your link, should find your statement about "pretty clear results" shamefully dishonest.
All of these papers amuse me, as they attempt to prove something absolutely opposed to reality:
1) that the socialist policies of the USA and, even moreso, Europe, are bad, despite the fact that these are the most successful economies in the world, and indeed, in all of history
2) that the more laissez faire nations of, for instance, South America, should be quite a bit more prosperous than us - all their problems are attributable to other sources than their lack of socialist or proto-socialist institutions.
In the west, we abolished child labor around 1900 when our economies had risen to the point where we could go beyond farming and we could afford to invest the human capital in teaching children more than basic skills.
Farming is at least as difficult as factory work, typically moreso - so your comment on investing human capital in education seems spurious.
The Dartmouth paper doesn't show what you say, or even particularly close. It looks at one nation, Vietnam.
Child labor is one of the myriad of issues associated we're discussing here - things like spending the extra money for safety and heatlh insurance and fire exits also fit in, though you've glossed these over. But as we look at it, many people say (as Edmonds does) that these kids work anyway on the farm, so, essentially what's the harm in letting them work in the factory? If the families "make it" then eventually the kids won't have to work.
It doesn't change the fact that now we're introducing them to the future: a future where new machines and processes can create phenomenal wealth. Except that you wish to let a factory owner keep almost all of that phenomenal wealth and screwing over the kids. If those factories had to have decent working conditions they could do so from the very first day we foreigners descended on the countryside and built them. If rules required this, the factories would still get built. Shirts would still get sewn. But the plight of their workers would advance far more rapidly.
Let's try a thought exercise. What if we didn't have laissez faire trade - but we did have open door immigration. What would happen then?
What if I make it even easier for you - what if there are magical planes that can fly these families you've doomed to generations of ignorance, poverty and early death straight to America, for free. No free trade, but free workforce. What happens then? Will we have to legalize child labor in the US? Will all of our heads just explode? Or will they just be far, far better off than if they stayed home in your retrocapitalist banana republic?
You want to move the goods and not the people. And by now it is becoming obvious to everyone why.
This brings me to the interesting thing about your message: despite all your attempts to avoid stating it aloud, you inevitably presuppose that labor regulations are doomed.
Yes, you really do. Unless you actually believe that someday all poverty will be eradicated... If I walk down your path:
1) There will always be some nations in poverty. Thus, there will always be places poor enough that outrages like child labor or firing-for-injury (in an unsafe workplace) are inevitable
2) We should always trade with those places (various justifications aside)
And I hope you will not argue the third point, obviously you are smart enou
racist = someone not comfortable with legalized child labor by "brown people"
don't want to compete = believes in liberal ideas like fair competition through fair markets for labor and capital. I.e. schools, 8 hour days, minimum wage, the EPA, OSHA, and other "inefficient" things etc. etc. that "god knows how the USA ever lived with without going bankrupt."
supercilious paternalism = doesn't want workers to compete with slaves, believes in functaional labor markets.
Here's a wild idea. This will just blow you away.
What if that factory owner, instead of keeping 99% of the profits, divides them with his workforce more evenly. He could just give them a bigger share in cash, but maybe we can structure the deal through some rules... you know, spend some on their safety, some on their quality of life (i.e. instead of making one 12 year old work 16 hours, how about hiring two 18 year olds for 8 hours each). Maybe set some aside for a school for those 12 year olds. Maybe hire a doctor to treat the ones who get sick. Maybe set up a little "insurance" pool for the people who get injured on the job.
Oh I know, you're in the throes of agony aren't you. "But please please it won't work, their poor little brown heads will just explode if those poor factory owners don't keep 99% of their profits for a few generations before "evolving" into a more fair system. It's all so necessary for children to work until they grow up (or lose an arm in the machine and maybe, not) and really not impeding their forward progress to glorious industrial revolution at all!
Besides which you're still studiously ignoring that economic prisoner's dilemma. Whatever you do there, you do here, just on a slight delay. You don't have the balls to come here and say you think we should have third world labor conditions. But you know full well that's exactly what this is about. You know why that shirt or those shoes you're wearing are so cheap. You know regulated western labor can't "pass on those savings" that come from child labor and illiteracy and 16 hour days. So it doesn't compete. In fact, western labor gets destroyed which, if you're not careful and don't keep your arms waving fast enough for liftoff, those poor little idiots you think you're fooling might notice is exactly what's happening all around them.
Yeah, you're a troll. No one accidentally misreads this badly.
Free trade helps BOTH parties.
Yeah, those little kids get to make your sneakers and you get to wear them.
I can understand why you're bitter. Your conscience must kill you.
It's always struck me as supremely hypocritical that progressives demand that other countries be allowed to do whatever they want without interference... EXCEPT to engage in free trade.
Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Idiocy to character ratio is in the double digits. Probably the stupidest statement I've read on/. all week!
Progressives neither demand other countries be allowed to do whatever they want, nor that they not engage in free trade. Ponder that, but don't hurt yourself.
I'm not a racist. It's hilarious to be labeled one for not getting on board with legalized foreign child labor.
You, however, are an idiot and a troll.
The Asian Brown Cloud is a direct result of Laissez Faire capitalism... literally, a giant, opaque choking cloud of smog, created by actual racists who decided that it was fine to do in Asia what would be illegal here. Russia had similarly lax environmental policy and had similar disasters.
more efficient = child labor, no workplace safety, no education, no free speech, no ability to associate or organize or participate in government policymaking, no hope, no future, in other words, being completely fucked... until, since there's no democractic process, a violent revolution takes place. Or not.
Slavery is efficient. Neofeudalism is efficient.
You know what though? All this efficiency is just shitting where you sleep. It's the Asian Brown Cloud of economics, not some unpredictable weather phenomenon.
I'd like to see that $2.50 go up over time,
I have no qualms at all about trading with another country that has some form of legal parity. But you want to trade with those who don't, because on some level that's the whole point. It's not about matching up supply and demand, it's about evading policies.
You don't want to engage in a policy debate, so you try to make it an economic one.
Sooner or later it comes back to the same thing. You want to have child labor, and we won't let you, so you're wondering if you can do it somewhere far away, out of sight, maybe to another nation or race, so it's less offensive... all of this based on the ugly and racist theory that they're so bad off they'll actually benefit from what we would never consider allowing.
It's not some economic necessity for children to work 14 hour days in a factory instead of going to school. It's not a precursor stage on the path to wealth.
protectionism = less efficient = no child labor, no locked fire exits, no throwing people injured on the job to the street to beg and die there, no fixing the game so that the working classes are so fucking screwed it takes a miracle for "some [to] even save up enough to allow their children to go to school."
On the other hand, I'd hate to see that $2.50 go back down to under $1 or to $0/unemployment because of U.S. protectionism or Chinese return to over-regulation of markets.
To be prosperous, China needs to learn what it is you are trying to forget - that markets don't run on pure ruthlessness, and "free markets" are an oxymoron. No market is "free" except for open anarchy where there is no market. All markets are based on rules, and "laissez faire" rules have a proven track record of human misery and failure.
You need the kind of balance that I'm lately assuming was achieved accidentally in the USA - between liberal and conservative forces, so that you have a strong and liberal (in the European sense) market but with enough decent social policy to disrupt the natural stratification of capital.
A Chinese person now makes $2.50 a day instead of $1, and has to do it in the inhuman working conditions I described, and in exchange workers in countries like the USA that have actually evolved into the modern age get gradually shafted back to the same level...
First of all, this article neither proves or even really implies anything in either direction about the general notion of "globalization" - which is really just a codeword for Laissez Faire capitalism.
Pretending it does is utterly and prima facie dishonest.
But since you mention it, the free trade premise is complete and utter bullshit.
Free Trade (sometimes also known as Globalization) just means that if you don't like the laws somewhere, you can go somewhere else to avoid them. If you think it would be more economically advantageous to grow cotton with slavery, you can find a nation where it's legal, and these free traders will happily buy it back where it *used to be* illegal. By the way, do you think anyone benefits from a labor "market" that's so "free" it includes competing against slave labor?
Well, I guess the slavemasters benefit, temporarily. But not even them, in the longer term. But I digress. Now, remember, IT outsourcing isn't cotton picking - but it piggybacks on the imbalances (currency etc) created by the same differences in social and legal policy.
"This is not about slavery!" Of course not. But the reason the example is so upsetting is that it's the perfectly logical conclusion of laissez faire ("free trade"). We used to have laws that would compensate for the legal and social differences between trading partners, so that you could actually have effective legal protections for workers, social safety nets, and so forth. Free trade is a conspiracy to delicately and gradually remove these policies by making them economically unviable through trade policy.
As a more practical matter it comes not to explicit American-style slavery but "working conditions." It's quite respectable in some economic circles to have a society where the proletariat is, from the age of 6-8 years old, forced to work 14 hours a day in a factory for subsistence wages, where when unsafe working conditions result in some heinous injury making them unable to work means they're thrown onto the street, and without any form of welfare they beg and die there.
Without meaningful public education, class stratification occurs and you once again get back to where we started, a hundred or two years ago.
The problem is that even beyond all the outrageous dishonesty in the free trade policy and rhetoric, it's also a stupid idea. The first world's economy is powered by consumer spending - by a big old liberal lower and middle class. It feeds off the innovation, curiosity and energy of a large population of educated people with leisure time and disposable income.
We've already come from Laissez Faire, and we ran screaming into the Liberal's arms, where we found the most incredible prosperity in human history.
Because basically what is happening lately is the legal community is trying, for fun and profit, to use EULAs and licenses and things like UCITA, to make every transmission of information into a contract negotiation of unlimited dimensions.
Imagine a "negotation" between, for instance, a team of 30 Sony corporate attorneys in New York, versus a 12 year old in Arkansas who just wants to listen to Eminem. One where the outcome is never recorded but always presumed. And now you see how absurd the legal fiction of the EULA really is.
And here is our biggest gift ever. unintentionally, the government itself is admitting that it is "virtually impossible" to handle this situation.
Everybody throw a party.
This wild-west/mafia nonsense with "IP law" needs to stop, because it's hurting our economy and rendering us unable to compete effectively against countries with sane, normal laws.
The GPL has been a wonderfully subversive attempt to fight the system within the system, but ultimately even the FSF will tell you that "the proliferation of licenses" is a problem. No fucking duh it's a "problem;" it plainly illustrates how completely fucking ridiculous, egotistical and largely futile the whole concept of a "license" is.
The powers of copyright holders to make licenses need to be delineated; EULAs need to be explicitly outlawed. Types of copyright exercise should be explicitly codified (a "whitelist" of acceptable options): i.e. conventional, bsd, gpl, etc. Then things can begin to be sane. No more EULA fine print preventing "benchmarking" or "backups," or "disclaimers of fitness" for commercial products... and all such games. And don't even get me started on software patents, a concept so obviously corrupt and ridiculous that we are frankly a laughingstock for ever considering them, let alone occasionally honoring them...
This is a bigger question than you might think. It breaks down the very notion of what money is, and what power is, and what gender roles are in our society.
We used to have female slavery. Some cultures dressed it up with niceties like marriage.
Prostitution was hugely liberating for women. They could now sell their services in a marketplace.
Now we're finding new ways for women to fit in to the program. Hey, they can just be like men! Wow! And of course, effortless birth control, which makes much of the sexual calculus of earlier societies moot.
Well, would it surprise you to know that many bright, beautiful middle class girls sell sex for money, under circumstances of luxury, respect and gentility that put many marriages to shame, in order to help finance graduate level education? That the stigma is not instinctive, and it is dissolving?
There is no requirement for prostitution to be degrading or violent, any more than for hockey to have more fistfights than football.
I imagine prostitution is just like marriage or casual relationships. Everyone approaches it differently; people will find highs and lows with all. The only difference is that prostitution in many of its forms still goes against the grain of our particular culture. It's evolution has been stunted by puritans...
During calendar year 2003, 1727 applications were made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for electronic surveillance and physical search . The 1727 applications include applications made solely for electronic surveillance, applications made solely for physical search, and combined applications requesting authority for electronic surveillance and physical search simultaneously . The Court approved, in whole or in part, 1724 applications.
The Court denied four applications. The Government did not appeal. any of those decisions.
Sorry, getting towards the end of the day here and my eyes aren't working so well. It wasn't "is being," it was "he's an idiot for..." and it should have been "he's being"...
Yeah, you got it exactly right. That's exactly what they want to do.
It's basically saying, "look, you want me to build my own prison, you can damn well pay me a salary while I do it."
More practically, the idea is to raise the alarm and encourage the community not to waste work in inherently un-free systems. This may make those systems less commercially attractive (or even economically viable) than closed systems, because the dirty secret of the software world is that free software is virtually indispensable, even on platforms like Windows (Putty, hello?).
Linus is just gratuitously FSF-bashing, since he couldn't relicense if he wanted to. He never had the copyrights assigned. But imagine the hypothetical example, to get an idea: if these new DRM systems couldn't use Linux? This actually is already a deterrent! Even today, they would at least think twice before closing that off.
So take it up with the hardware people, not software people.
Irrelevant. Of course we will. That's not the point.
The point is that the GPL is now meaningless on the locked platform. Without v3 you are free - to do nothing.
This is just a license you can use if you want your stuff to be really free, instead of "kind of free but not really free at all if they pull the old hardware secret sauce trick on you."
So if you care about it, using the new license is the main thing. The hardware market could in theory respond to FS geeks pressure. However, you and I both know it probably won't.
To guarantee access to the source code - which it is whether DRM is present or not.
You don't get it.
Why does it guarantee access to the source code?
Why?
So you can admire the artistry of the curly bracket placement?
So you can modify it... and then actually use it!
So. Now, where were we. You have your GPLv2 source code... you made your change. You recompile, and you try to re-use it...
And you get an error. "Security Violation."
OK, welcome to your new definition of "Freedom." It's OK with Linus, and I guess it's OK with you. Good luck kid. You do whatever you want with your own code... so will the FSF...
So he's an idiot because he has a different point of view than you? Wow, that's a bullet-proof argument.
No, he's being an idiot for the reasons I stated, and by the way, if you want to argue otherwise, you might want to read those reasons and actually respond to them...
I don't think you read my post. It was entirely on topic. I can't really understand your criticism, though.
What you wrote:
What he is in fact saying is that he feels the GPLv3 isn't right for the Linux kernel.
What I wrote:
Linus doesn't want to use it, fine. I think he's an idiot for not getting it, but no one is being "pressed." We're all free to do what we want. Stallman can't press anybody. And that's the point. he's fighting so that you can't be "pressed" by others.
I believe we basically agree.
Don't buy the damn DRM hardware in the first place.
First of all, this isn't the point. In fact, if you RTFA and my post you would see why this is irrelevant. I'll add more to this thought in a second.
But second of all, just as an aside, you may not have many options. Already this is true for certain specialied kinds of hardware.
It takes billions to make modern chips. Only a few companies do it. This is not exactly a fluid market. You may not realize what you mean by "marginalized."
Linus is saying that software developers have no right to dictate what people do with their hardware.
What we are discussing is how you would like to license your free software. If you want to do some FS work, you make it available under the terms you want. If people don't like the terms, they don't get the free stuff. Maybe they go pay for an alternative.
Does that sound like dictating?
No, of course it's not.
It's the DRM people who want to dictate.
This is just FSF saying, hey, you know there's really no point in having a GPL if someone can make some hardware secret sauce and you can't actually modify the works. We don't want our work to help the guys building this prison. If you feel the same way, here, you can use our license.
Linus doesn't want to come along? That's his loss. No one's dictating anything to him either. If I understand it correctly the whole thing is moot, too, since the copyrights were never assigned to a central authority and relicensing Linux is thus impossible anyway.
So by the way, is this just a comedic discussion about a moot point? Or did we just discover that this really is Linus just gratuitously (and IMHO ignorantly) bashing the GPLv3 draft?
Granted, my wallet not going to make any difference in the market as a whole.
Yeah. That's it in a nutshell, man.
Frankly, the more restrictions that are built into the GPL, less free the software licensed under it becomes.
You have a good point here. Maybe you're right. It depends. I kind of agree, but I also have an idea that many people will be unable to ignore the advantages of the commons, and just like everyone wants to live in a first world country with lots of rules (designed, largely, to make you more "free" on the balance) than a third world country that's laissez faire, people will continue to gravitate towards the license as long as its restrictions are exactly and only concerned with guaranteeing freedom effectively.
To repeat my words, I think he's "being" an idiot, not that he is an idiot.:) I'm with you on this.
And you make a very important point. If the draft was so widely misinterpreted by us, then you can imagine how it will do in the courts. It needs work, and if the anti-DRM stuff can't be done in a clear and legally impenetrable way, it shouldn't be done (or rather, they can do it if they want, but no one will use the licence).
Slashdot Mirror
with a quite functional win32 emulated closed source system in mplayer, doubtlessly by giving us a shady, spyware-riddled bloated buggy closed source app... worse than their windows piece of crap. Unless Linux multimedia apps were somehow their secret core competence and this one will be better?
LOL
I apologize for the delay in responding. Let's consolidate this back down to one thread, here.
I apologize for the delay in responding. Let's consolidate this back down to one thread, here.
(Ignorant. Hah. That's a funny crack from someone who tries to pass off Conservative think tank position papers which admit they have no scientific basis in the first page as "pretty clear results." Ignorance is the most charitable excuse I could think of for that kind of behavior.)
Anti-market means reductions in economic freedom. There have been plenty of research like this one, and the results are pretty clear: economic freedom combined with well-functioning institutions enhance economic growth.
This isn't research. It's an academic propaganda piece produced by the Heritage foundation, by people who only get paid if they reach a certain conclusion.
It doesn't give any results. It says so in it's first page.
Thus I, and anyone else who bothers to follow your link, should find your statement about "pretty clear results" shamefully dishonest.
All of these papers amuse me, as they attempt to prove something absolutely opposed to reality:
1) that the socialist policies of the USA and, even moreso, Europe, are bad, despite the fact that these are the most successful economies in the world, and indeed, in all of history
2) that the more laissez faire nations of, for instance, South America, should be quite a bit more prosperous than us - all their problems are attributable to other sources than their lack of socialist or proto-socialist institutions.
In the west, we abolished child labor around 1900 when our economies had risen to the point where we could go beyond farming and we could afford to invest the human capital in teaching children more than basic skills.
Farming is at least as difficult as factory work, typically moreso - so your comment on investing human capital in education seems spurious.
The Dartmouth paper doesn't show what you say, or even particularly close. It looks at one nation, Vietnam.
Child labor is one of the myriad of issues associated we're discussing here - things like spending the extra money for safety and heatlh insurance and fire exits also fit in, though you've glossed these over. But as we look at it, many people say (as Edmonds does) that these kids work anyway on the farm, so, essentially what's the harm in letting them work in the factory? If the families "make it" then eventually the kids won't have to work.
It doesn't change the fact that now we're introducing them to the future: a future where new machines and processes can create phenomenal wealth. Except that you wish to let a factory owner keep almost all of that phenomenal wealth and screwing over the kids. If those factories had to have decent working conditions they could do so from the very first day we foreigners descended on the countryside and built them. If rules required this, the factories would still get built. Shirts would still get sewn. But the plight of their workers would advance far more rapidly.
Let's try a thought exercise. What if we didn't have laissez faire trade - but we did have open door immigration. What would happen then?
What if I make it even easier for you - what if there are magical planes that can fly these families you've doomed to generations of ignorance, poverty and early death straight to America, for free. No free trade, but free workforce. What happens then? Will we have to legalize child labor in the US? Will all of our heads just explode? Or will they just be far, far better off than if they stayed home in your retrocapitalist banana republic?
You want to move the goods and not the people. And by now it is becoming obvious to everyone why.
This brings me to the interesting thing about your message: despite all your attempts to avoid stating it aloud, you inevitably presuppose that labor regulations are doomed.
Yes, you really do. Unless you actually believe that someday all poverty will be eradicated... If I walk down your path:
1) There will always be some nations in poverty. Thus, there will always be places poor enough that outrages like child labor or firing-for-injury (in an unsafe workplace) are inevitable
2) We should always trade with those places (various justifications aside)
And I hope you will not argue the third point, obviously you are smart enou
OK here's another euphemism watch:
racist = someone not comfortable with legalized child labor by "brown people"
don't want to compete = believes in liberal ideas like fair competition through fair markets for labor and capital. I.e. schools, 8 hour days, minimum wage, the EPA, OSHA, and other "inefficient" things etc. etc. that "god knows how the USA ever lived with without going bankrupt."
supercilious paternalism = doesn't want workers to compete with slaves, believes in functaional labor markets.
Here's a wild idea. This will just blow you away.
What if that factory owner, instead of keeping 99% of the profits, divides them with his workforce more evenly. He could just give them a bigger share in cash, but maybe we can structure the deal through some rules... you know, spend some on their safety, some on their quality of life (i.e. instead of making one 12 year old work 16 hours, how about hiring two 18 year olds for 8 hours each). Maybe set some aside for a school for those 12 year olds. Maybe hire a doctor to treat the ones who get sick. Maybe set up a little "insurance" pool for the people who get injured on the job.
Oh I know, you're in the throes of agony aren't you. "But please please it won't work, their poor little brown heads will just explode if those poor factory owners don't keep 99% of their profits for a few generations before "evolving" into a more fair system. It's all so necessary for children to work until they grow up (or lose an arm in the machine and maybe, not) and really not impeding their forward progress to glorious industrial revolution at all!
Besides which you're still studiously ignoring that economic prisoner's dilemma. Whatever you do there, you do here, just on a slight delay. You don't have the balls to come here and say you think we should have third world labor conditions. But you know full well that's exactly what this is about. You know why that shirt or those shoes you're wearing are so cheap. You know regulated western labor can't "pass on those savings" that come from child labor and illiteracy and 16 hour days. So it doesn't compete. In fact, western labor gets destroyed which, if you're not careful and don't keep your arms waving fast enough for liftoff, those poor little idiots you think you're fooling might notice is exactly what's happening all around them.
Non sequitur.
/. all week!
Do you even know what that means?
lowered ever so slightly
Yeah, you're a troll. No one accidentally misreads this badly.
Free trade helps BOTH parties.
Yeah, those little kids get to make your sneakers and you get to wear them.
I can understand why you're bitter. Your conscience must kill you.
It's always struck me as supremely hypocritical that progressives demand that other countries be allowed to do whatever they want without interference... EXCEPT to engage in free trade.
Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Idiocy to character ratio is in the double digits. Probably the stupidest statement I've read on
Progressives neither demand other countries be allowed to do whatever they want, nor that they not engage in free trade. Ponder that, but don't hurt yourself.
I'm not a racist. It's hilarious to be labeled one for not getting on board with legalized foreign child labor.
You, however, are an idiot and a troll.
The Asian Brown Cloud is a direct result of Laissez Faire capitalism... literally, a giant, opaque choking cloud of smog, created by actual racists who decided that it was fine to do in Asia what would be illegal here. Russia had similarly lax environmental policy and had similar disasters.
Euphemism watch:
anti-market = anti-laissez-faire market.
more efficient = child labor, no workplace safety, no education, no free speech, no ability to associate or organize or participate in government policymaking, no hope, no future, in other words, being completely fucked... until, since there's no democractic process, a violent revolution takes place. Or not.
Slavery is efficient. Neofeudalism is efficient.
You know what though? All this efficiency is just shitting where you sleep. It's the Asian Brown Cloud of economics, not some unpredictable weather phenomenon.
I'd like to see that $2.50 go up over time,
I have no qualms at all about trading with another country that has some form of legal parity. But you want to trade with those who don't, because on some level that's the whole point. It's not about matching up supply and demand, it's about evading policies.
You don't want to engage in a policy debate, so you try to make it an economic one.
Sooner or later it comes back to the same thing. You want to have child labor, and we won't let you, so you're wondering if you can do it somewhere far away, out of sight, maybe to another nation or race, so it's less offensive... all of this based on the ugly and racist theory that they're so bad off they'll actually benefit from what we would never consider allowing.
It's not some economic necessity for children to work 14 hour days in a factory instead of going to school. It's not a precursor stage on the path to wealth.
protectionism = less efficient = no child labor, no locked fire exits, no throwing people injured on the job to the street to beg and die there, no fixing the game so that the working classes are so fucking screwed it takes a miracle for "some [to] even save up enough to allow their children to go to school."
On the other hand, I'd hate to see that $2.50 go back down to under $1 or to $0/unemployment because of U.S. protectionism or Chinese return to over-regulation of markets.
To be prosperous, China needs to learn what it is you are trying to forget - that markets don't run on pure ruthlessness, and "free markets" are an oxymoron. No market is "free" except for open anarchy where there is no market. All markets are based on rules, and "laissez faire" rules have a proven track record of human misery and failure.
You need the kind of balance that I'm lately assuming was achieved accidentally in the USA - between liberal and conservative forces, so that you have a strong and liberal (in the European sense) market but with enough decent social policy to disrupt the natural stratification of capital.
If I'm black, and I want a mercedez benz, and you don't want to buy me one, are you a racist?
How about we let them make their own laws and live the way they want to?
A Chinese person now makes $2.50 a day instead of $1, and has to do it in the inhuman working conditions I described, and in exchange workers in countries like the USA that have actually evolved into the modern age get gradually shafted back to the same level...
That's what you're so happy about?
First of all, this article neither proves or even really implies anything in either direction about the general notion of "globalization" - which is really just a codeword for Laissez Faire capitalism.
Pretending it does is utterly and prima facie dishonest.
But since you mention it, the free trade premise is complete and utter bullshit.
Free Trade (sometimes also known as Globalization) just means that if you don't like the laws somewhere, you can go somewhere else to avoid them. If you think it would be more economically advantageous to grow cotton with slavery, you can find a nation where it's legal, and these free traders will happily buy it back where it *used to be* illegal. By the way, do you think anyone benefits from a labor "market" that's so "free" it includes competing against slave labor?
Well, I guess the slavemasters benefit, temporarily. But not even them, in the longer term. But I digress. Now, remember, IT outsourcing isn't cotton picking - but it piggybacks on the imbalances (currency etc) created by the same differences in social and legal policy.
"This is not about slavery!" Of course not. But the reason the example is so upsetting is that it's the perfectly logical conclusion of laissez faire ("free trade"). We used to have laws that would compensate for the legal and social differences between trading partners, so that you could actually have effective legal protections for workers, social safety nets, and so forth. Free trade is a conspiracy to delicately and gradually remove these policies by making them economically unviable through trade policy.
As a more practical matter it comes not to explicit American-style slavery but "working conditions." It's quite respectable in some economic circles to have a society where the proletariat is, from the age of 6-8 years old, forced to work 14 hours a day in a factory for subsistence wages, where when unsafe working conditions result in some heinous injury making them unable to work means they're thrown onto the street, and without any form of welfare they beg and die there.
Without meaningful public education, class stratification occurs and you once again get back to where we started, a hundred or two years ago.
The problem is that even beyond all the outrageous dishonesty in the free trade policy and rhetoric, it's also a stupid idea. The first world's economy is powered by consumer spending - by a big old liberal lower and middle class. It feeds off the innovation, curiosity and energy of a large population of educated people with leisure time and disposable income.
We've already come from Laissez Faire, and we ran screaming into the Liberal's arms, where we found the most incredible prosperity in human history.
Because basically what is happening lately is the legal community is trying, for fun and profit, to use EULAs and licenses and things like UCITA, to make every transmission of information into a contract negotiation of unlimited dimensions.
Imagine a "negotation" between, for instance, a team of 30 Sony corporate attorneys in New York, versus a 12 year old in Arkansas who just wants to listen to Eminem. One where the outcome is never recorded but always presumed. And now you see how absurd the legal fiction of the EULA really is.
And here is our biggest gift ever. unintentionally, the government itself is admitting that it is "virtually impossible" to handle this situation.
Everybody throw a party.
This wild-west/mafia nonsense with "IP law" needs to stop, because it's hurting our economy and rendering us unable to compete effectively against countries with sane, normal laws.
The GPL has been a wonderfully subversive attempt to fight the system within the system, but ultimately even the FSF will tell you that "the proliferation of licenses" is a problem. No fucking duh it's a "problem;" it plainly illustrates how completely fucking ridiculous, egotistical and largely futile the whole concept of a "license" is.
The powers of copyright holders to make licenses need to be delineated; EULAs need to be explicitly outlawed. Types of copyright exercise should be explicitly codified (a "whitelist" of acceptable options): i.e. conventional, bsd, gpl, etc. Then things can begin to be sane. No more EULA fine print preventing "benchmarking" or "backups," or "disclaimers of fitness" for commercial products... and all such games. And don't even get me started on software patents, a concept so obviously corrupt and ridiculous that we are frankly a laughingstock for ever considering them, let alone occasionally honoring them...
This is a bigger question than you might think. It breaks down the very notion of what money is, and what power is, and what gender roles are in our society.
We used to have female slavery. Some cultures dressed it up with niceties like marriage.
Prostitution was hugely liberating for women. They could now sell their services in a marketplace.
Now we're finding new ways for women to fit in to the program. Hey, they can just be like men! Wow! And of course, effortless birth control, which makes much of the sexual calculus of earlier societies moot.
Well, would it surprise you to know that many bright, beautiful middle class girls sell sex for money, under circumstances of luxury, respect and gentility that put many marriages to shame, in order to help finance graduate level education? That the stigma is not instinctive, and it is dissolving?
There is no requirement for prostitution to be degrading or violent, any more than for hockey to have more fistfights than football.
I imagine prostitution is just like marriage or casual relationships. Everyone approaches it differently; people will find highs and lows with all. The only difference is that prostitution in many of its forms still goes against the grain of our particular culture. It's evolution has been stunted by puritans...
Prostitution will always have a special place among crimes in the hearts of law enforcement personel and legislators, since many are customers.
Why is sex in any way in the same league as violence, in the canon of what's "bad"?
Well said, man! Amazing how many people are confused by this, but of course Torvalds himself is primarily to blame...
:)
And I admire your optimism as well.
Reposted right wing blog propaganda. Not worth the paper it's not printed on.
What does it say? That we can ignore any law if it's inconvenient.
Wait... no, sorry. It just looks like it says that. I think it means that Bush can ignore any law if it's inconvenient.
During calendar year 2003, 1727 applications were made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for electronic surveillance and physical search . The 1727 applications include applications made solely for electronic surveillance, applications made solely for physical search, and combined applications requesting authority for electronic surveillance and physical search simultaneously . The Court approved, in whole or in part, 1724 applications.
:D
The Court denied four applications. The Government did not appeal. any of those decisions.
-2003 FISA stats
This is the most since 2000 - In fact I believe in other years all were approved?
No wonder you didn't cite your sources. You're lying through your teeth.
So what's the deal? Do you get paid for this, or is it just fun?
Sorry, getting towards the end of the day here and my eyes aren't working so well. It wasn't "is being," it was "he's an idiot for..." and it should have been "he's being"...
Ah, I think the meaning is clear.
:D
"Is" - is.
"Is being" by contrast clearly indicates a more transitory or temporary condition - regardless of whether the "is" is in a contraction.
But in case I wasn't understood, that's what I meant.
Wrong.
This means the DRM hardware has found a loophole to remove your freedom to modify the GPL software that runs on it.
You want to use different hardware? Beside the point. What about the software written for that DRM hardware?
Were you going to say "Don't write it then?" Because that's exactly what RMS is saying, with this license.
Yeah, you got it exactly right. That's exactly what they want to do.
It's basically saying, "look, you want me to build my own prison, you can damn well pay me a salary while I do it."
More practically, the idea is to raise the alarm and encourage the community not to waste work in inherently un-free systems. This may make those systems less commercially attractive (or even economically viable) than closed systems, because the dirty secret of the software world is that free software is virtually indispensable, even on platforms like Windows (Putty, hello?).
Linus is just gratuitously FSF-bashing, since he couldn't relicense if he wanted to. He never had the copyrights assigned. But imagine the hypothetical example, to get an idea: if these new DRM systems couldn't use Linux? This actually is already a deterrent! Even today, they would at least think twice before closing that off.
So take it up with the hardware people, not software people.
Irrelevant. Of course we will. That's not the point.
The point is that the GPL is now meaningless on the locked platform. Without v3 you are free - to do nothing.
This is just a license you can use if you want your stuff to be really free, instead of "kind of free but not really free at all if they pull the old hardware secret sauce trick on you."
So if you care about it, using the new license is the main thing. The hardware market could in theory respond to FS geeks pressure. However, you and I both know it probably won't.
To guarantee access to the source code - which it is whether DRM is present or not.
You don't get it.
Why does it guarantee access to the source code?
Why?
So you can admire the artistry of the curly bracket placement?
So you can modify it... and then actually use it!
So. Now, where were we. You have your GPLv2 source code... you made your change. You recompile, and you try to re-use it...
And you get an error. "Security Violation."
OK, welcome to your new definition of "Freedom." It's OK with Linus, and I guess it's OK with you. Good luck kid. You do whatever you want with your own code... so will the FSF...
So he's an idiot because he has a different point of view than you? Wow, that's a bullet-proof argument.
No, he's being an idiot for the reasons I stated, and by the way, if you want to argue otherwise, you might want to read those reasons and actually respond to them...
I don't think you read my post. It was entirely on topic. I can't really understand your criticism, though.
What you wrote:
What he is in fact saying is that he feels the GPLv3 isn't right for the Linux kernel.
What I wrote:
Linus doesn't want to use it, fine. I think he's an idiot for not getting it, but no one is being "pressed." We're all free to do what we want. Stallman can't press anybody. And that's the point. he's fighting so that you can't be "pressed" by others.
I believe we basically agree.
Don't buy the damn DRM hardware in the first place.
First of all, this isn't the point. In fact, if you RTFA and my post you would see why this is irrelevant. I'll add more to this thought in a second.
But second of all, just as an aside, you may not have many options. Already this is true for certain specialied kinds of hardware.
It takes billions to make modern chips. Only a few companies do it. This is not exactly a fluid market. You may not realize what you mean by "marginalized."
Linus is saying that software developers have no right to dictate what people do with their hardware.
What we are discussing is how you would like to license your free software. If you want to do some FS work, you make it available under the terms you want. If people don't like the terms, they don't get the free stuff. Maybe they go pay for an alternative.
Does that sound like dictating?
No, of course it's not.
It's the DRM people who want to dictate.
This is just FSF saying, hey, you know there's really no point in having a GPL if someone can make some hardware secret sauce and you can't actually modify the works. We don't want our work to help the guys building this prison. If you feel the same way, here, you can use our license.
Linus doesn't want to come along? That's his loss. No one's dictating anything to him either. If I understand it correctly the whole thing is moot, too, since the copyrights were never assigned to a central authority and relicensing Linux is thus impossible anyway.
So by the way, is this just a comedic discussion about a moot point? Or did we just discover that this really is Linus just gratuitously (and IMHO ignorantly) bashing the GPLv3 draft?
Granted, my wallet not going to make any difference in the market as a whole.
Yeah. That's it in a nutshell, man.
Frankly, the more restrictions that are built into the GPL, less free the software licensed under it becomes.
You have a good point here. Maybe you're right. It depends. I kind of agree, but I also have an idea that many people will be unable to ignore the advantages of the commons, and just like everyone wants to live in a first world country with lots of rules (designed, largely, to make you more "free" on the balance) than a third world country that's laissez faire, people will continue to gravitate towards the license as long as its restrictions are exactly and only concerned with guaranteeing freedom effectively.
To repeat my words, I think he's "being" an idiot, not that he is an idiot. :) I'm with you on this.
And you make a very important point. If the draft was so widely misinterpreted by us, then you can imagine how it will do in the courts. It needs work, and if the anti-DRM stuff can't be done in a clear and legally impenetrable way, it shouldn't be done (or rather, they can do it if they want, but no one will use the licence).