So a police officers job by definition is corrupt? To Server and Protect is immoral? Ok, while I wish the government would be abolished and we could all live in a mad max utopian world where you can only rely on yourself, calling a police officers job corrupt and immoral *at its base* is just fucking stupid. Yeah traffic cops suck, yeah cops can be assholes (as you and I are proving right now, all humans have this capacity) and I do believe cops should receive harsher sentences than the general population when they go out of line. But beyond that I have a great deal of respect for someone who runs *towards* the sound of gunfire instead of away from it. Just because you get a ticket for something stupid and you feel is unfair doesn't change the fact that the person issuing that ticket may be shot dead tomorrow, something most of us don't have as *regular and frequent possibility* in their jobs.
Now please pull your head out of your ass and don't judge an entire profession by the few assholes that make headlines or the ones who reciprocated your sparkling personality.
And get sued by the person assaulting you. Once they make laws where people who are breaking and entering can't sue the person who non-lethally stopped them I'll advocate your position. Until then I vote for buckshot for those who choose to arm themselves.
Simple solution, pull them out of the pool and shoot them;-)
But seriously, thats bullshit, someone trespassing onto your property and your responsible for their safety?! I know this is a real law, or at least a pervasive urban legend, but thats just an insanely stupid law.
Wait, your arguing against guns because people use it for *suicide*?! A person has the right to terminate their life for any reason they so desire. If they want to off themselves it shouldn't be illegal for them to seek assistance so that its painless. Because assisted suicide is illegal people take it into their own hands and as the other responder says sometimes include innocent people in their attempts, potentially killing them along with themselves, or worse kill the other person and survive themselves. Oh and incase you think my opinion is only theory I've had family kill themselves and people I love attempt it. It's a selfish thing but that does not remove ones right to end ones own life in whatever way you see fit. The fact that they today live fairly happy lives almost directly related to their failed suicide attempts doesn't change that. As for those that succeeded, well if there is anything after this life I'll be first in line to kick the shit out of them.
Suicide in no way should be used as an argument against gun ownership, that is a personal choice, that is like saying we should outlaw cars or plastic bags or rope because they can be used by someone to kill themselves, its idiotic and treats people like their children. You have the right not to own a gun and I respect that, I myself don't own a gun either, but I absolutely and emphatically support peoples *right* to owning them.
Even the dumbest criminal knows that its better to break into an old ladys house with a stupid yapping dog when you can't hear the yapping dog since she's not home. She put it in her purse while she walks around the mall for her morning exercise. Rather than break into the guy next doors place who just had UPS drop off 20,000 rounds of ammo and has animal heads mounted on his wall visible from the street and a car parked out front with a sticker of "shoot first, don't bother asking" proudly in the center of his bumper.
Problem is when they start getting clueless clients who complain "I can't download XYZ at the *guaranteed* speed of 7mbps!" because the line between here and buttswala goes over a port thats at 99.9% capacity. So even that system has holes in it. Personally I'm slightly leaning against net neutrality, I see pros and cons to it and the extreme cons out weight the extreme pros. Providers who give crappy service should be dealt with in the market, users who have 'no choice' usually do but its not the path of least resistance.
So long as this doesn't get in the way of me nullrouting a client for nonpayment/abuse/(d)dos's it wont effect me. Increasing your bandwidth is what you *should* do as an ISP, not lower it so that you can save a couple bucks and piss off your clients.
I'm curious if prepending ASN's would fall under 'discrimination/degrade/interfere'... if so thats a big no no in my book as well.
Agreed 100%. Best Buy is better at it than any other brick n morter store out there. Walmarts their only real competition but then they compete with everyone.:-)
That wasn't a rebrand, it was sold off to circuit city, now some other company prob runs it. I use to work for the @#$%@shack at one of their most profitable stores in a district of ~30. Because we weren't selling the 'right' products we constantly were treated like trash, the fact that other stores were running at a loss didn't matter, they sold cell phones so they obviously knew what they were doing. That is until those stores got shutdown because some bean counter finally saw the numbers and told the sales/marketing jackoffs to stfu. The people in charge have been ruining it the last decade trying to be mini a Best Buy instead of focusing on what they actually did best, being the 7/11 of small electronics/parts, cables, and batteries, gd idiots.
If on return of your computer you reflash your bios with the latest version from XYZ corp you bought it from, will that kill the malware? Baring of course your wearing a tinfoil hat like one of the other replies here and think all machines are infected from the factory and none of the other real security analysts who go to places like defcon have caught it... That should work to protect your machine from this once you recover it, yes?
This all comes down to one thing. GPLv2 makes no guarantee that the source code released under it will work on the platform of choice and it *shouldn't*. Cygwin doesn't change that, another *nix emulation system for XYZ platform doesn't change that. The original posters in this thread argued that since the iphone isn't as open as they'd like it to be its basically anti-GPL and is immoral to port things to it. Which is bullshit. Since they only use that argument because the guys who did it are asking to be compensated for their time and money spent to port the project even though they freely release the source code for those savvy enough to do it themselves.
And back before the gcc compiler was a usable piece of technology people had to use borland to compile things which was waay more than $99 and no one complained about code being non gpl because of it. People just worked on the gcc until it became a usable compiler and then just about everyone switched to it. In Apples case they probably will constantly work to keep their compiler/programs incompatible with anything the community makes... but if that occurs it just shows their character not the legality of porting or making GPL code for their platform. On the other hand they may release their SDK to the public and then it wont be a problem... time will tell. Although the fact that you can't even read their SDK license without either signing up to be a dev or using wikileaks tells me which way they'll go.
Wait so guaranteed chains on you is freedom while potential chains in a projects fork that you can ignore because you can continue to use the open BSD release one is slavery?.... wow your world is messed up.
Wow, seriously, just wow. BSD is murder, fucking awesome. No wonder I love FreeBSD so much, I kill a kitten-of-the-sea every time I boot my pc.
BSD *is* less restrictive than GPL it does not force inclusion, it doesn't give you any rights over the original BSD code, only rights over your own version. Someone cannot kill a BSD project by making it proprietary. The main project is still out there, the fact that it might not have that nifty cool feature you'd love because someone wants 19.99 for it is irrelevant. BSD and GPL are two different ideologies. Neither is right/ethical/moral but BSD *is* less restrictive than GPL, that is just straight up facts not opinions or ethereal bullshit made up analogies. Whether you define those fewer restrictions as 'less free' because its fucking murder is between you and your psychiatrist.
If you don't want people to use your work for commercial gain don't release it under GPL, release it as freeware and don't share the source. You want to share the source so you can attract more developers, be prepared to have some of them make money off your work. It happens every time someone buys a linux distro or linux book after all, people making money off other peoples work... thats how society runs.
Cydia and anything like it is a restricted market. Only users who have jailbreaked their phones can use it. Those who are unable to do so for technical or moral or legal reasons are left out in the cold while *all* iphone users can use the App Store except those who choose not to.
Thats a problem with the App Store, not with GPL. In theory someone else can do this, so in theory they are complying with the GPL, all else is irrelevant. The fact that you disagree or don't like the method, in the spirit of your own sig, is no proof that this is a case of non compliance.
Either insurance covers it, or the people paying their bills cover it.
I take it you've never run your own business with any kind of serious infrastructure? Insurance isn't cheap, free, or as responsive as you seem to think so. Insurance doesn't get your power fixed within hours of failure, the electric company does. The insurance company doesn't pay for it, the electric company does. Several weeks or months later they may be partially compensated by an insurance company or by the person who drove his car into the pole but *that night right when it broke* its the electric company.
The costs are built into the rates, and the lower usage you have, the higher your rate per KWH.
For serious industrial power users you are correct, but for at home users, at least out here in California you are incorrect. You have a base tier and once your outside that you begin to pay more per KWH and then there are other tiers beyond that where the price continues to rise. Now for industrial usage, such as a data center, yes power gets cheaper the more you use. But home users that isn't true universally.
As for your example about places that don't use power for months or whatever... you are correct, for now. If this becomes the predominant trend though that will change. If things continue where self generated power becomes the predominate power usage it will become common that everyone connected to the grid will have a separate infrastructure charge. I hope this fee causes the cost per kw/hr to drop but by no means is that fee immoral or intolerable or 'greed pure and simple'. That is how it *should* be, the physical infrastructure should be a separate thing from the power carried over it. Someone has to pay to maintain it, either you directly or via government taxes, it sure as hell isn't some mythical insurance company that does it for free out of the kindness of their hearts.
Yes. On the part of the 50% who aren't drawing power during the day but do at night. This particular plan by the electric company may be flawed but the idea of paying a reasonable monthly fee to cover those repairs is fine. In fact how many people are using it isn't relevant in the grand scheme of things. The problem is if they charge something unreasonable to maintain the grid, historically it was never a problem since part of your per kw/hr charge was to maintain it and there was no efficient self generation possible. Now that system is changing and they are trying to figure out how to adapt to the new usage structure. Furthermore those who move to a fully self sufficient energy system and don't need the grid as a backup wont be effected by this, but if you have the grid there as a backup it is not unreasonable to expect a maintenance fee for it. Otherwise you'll just end up paying it in taxes and we all know the government does less with the money you give them than even a greedy, but not criminal, corporation. They at least have the motive of profit to provide service, the government bureaucrats couldn't give a damn.
Nope, that us why its a bad analogy. They *are* using the grid, the power usage is neutral but the grids connection is real, unlike the nonexistent connection in your voip/pots analogy.
When you buy a loaf of bread, do you get billed for an oven maintenance fee?
No, but then bakers aren't required to accept your homemade bread either, while the electric company has to accept your extra power. It's a rather important difference.
I haven't heard of one but by no means would I consider myself an expert on FOSS licensing, their great reads when your trying to fall asleep though.:)
But if I were to offer my opinion... I'm not sure they can be compatible. BSD is perfectly content with having their code wrapped into commercial software without compensation, even without credit in some cases. OS/X being the poster child of this example. While Apple shares code back to the community, something not required by BSD, they also locked down their kernel, something that they could never do with GPL code.
Then there is RMS, the founder of GPL, who specifically created his license to prevent something like that from ever occurring. In his world and in many that he has inspired, Apples usurping of BSD/FreeBSD for their own commercial gain is the worst thing that can happen. Everything they stand for abhors that scenario.
So while I am no expert on the legal standing of whether a hybrid license can exist, purely from an ideology stand point I can't imagine the two mixing. They are oil and vinegar, both tasty and delicious in the salad that is FOSS, but they can never mesh except in userland.
Slashdot Mirror
So a police officers job by definition is corrupt? To Server and Protect is immoral? Ok, while I wish the government would be abolished and we could all live in a mad max utopian world where you can only rely on yourself, calling a police officers job corrupt and immoral *at its base* is just fucking stupid. Yeah traffic cops suck, yeah cops can be assholes (as you and I are proving right now, all humans have this capacity) and I do believe cops should receive harsher sentences than the general population when they go out of line. But beyond that I have a great deal of respect for someone who runs *towards* the sound of gunfire instead of away from it. Just because you get a ticket for something stupid and you feel is unfair doesn't change the fact that the person issuing that ticket may be shot dead tomorrow, something most of us don't have as *regular and frequent possibility* in their jobs.
Now please pull your head out of your ass and don't judge an entire profession by the few assholes that make headlines or the ones who reciprocated your sparkling personality.
And get sued by the person assaulting you. Once they make laws where people who are breaking and entering can't sue the person who non-lethally stopped them I'll advocate your position. Until then I vote for buckshot for those who choose to arm themselves.
Simple solution, pull them out of the pool and shoot them ;-)
But seriously, thats bullshit, someone trespassing onto your property and your responsible for their safety?! I know this is a real law, or at least a pervasive urban legend, but thats just an insanely stupid law.
Wait, your arguing against guns because people use it for *suicide*?! A person has the right to terminate their life for any reason they so desire. If they want to off themselves it shouldn't be illegal for them to seek assistance so that its painless. Because assisted suicide is illegal people take it into their own hands and as the other responder says sometimes include innocent people in their attempts, potentially killing them along with themselves, or worse kill the other person and survive themselves. Oh and incase you think my opinion is only theory I've had family kill themselves and people I love attempt it. It's a selfish thing but that does not remove ones right to end ones own life in whatever way you see fit. The fact that they today live fairly happy lives almost directly related to their failed suicide attempts doesn't change that. As for those that succeeded, well if there is anything after this life I'll be first in line to kick the shit out of them.
Suicide in no way should be used as an argument against gun ownership, that is a personal choice, that is like saying we should outlaw cars or plastic bags or rope because they can be used by someone to kill themselves, its idiotic and treats people like their children. You have the right not to own a gun and I respect that, I myself don't own a gun either, but I absolutely and emphatically support peoples *right* to owning them.
Even the dumbest criminal knows that its better to break into an old ladys house with a stupid yapping dog when you can't hear the yapping dog since she's not home. She put it in her purse while she walks around the mall for her morning exercise. Rather than break into the guy next doors place who just had UPS drop off 20,000 rounds of ammo and has animal heads mounted on his wall visible from the street and a car parked out front with a sticker of "shoot first, don't bother asking" proudly in the center of his bumper.
Aww I love the term meatspace, it makes all the vegans nervous.
Problem is when they start getting clueless clients who complain "I can't download XYZ at the *guaranteed* speed of 7mbps!" because the line between here and buttswala goes over a port thats at 99.9% capacity. So even that system has holes in it. Personally I'm slightly leaning against net neutrality, I see pros and cons to it and the extreme cons out weight the extreme pros. Providers who give crappy service should be dealt with in the market, users who have 'no choice' usually do but its not the path of least resistance.
So long as this doesn't get in the way of me nullrouting a client for nonpayment/abuse/(d)dos's it wont effect me. Increasing your bandwidth is what you *should* do as an ISP, not lower it so that you can save a couple bucks and piss off your clients.
... if so thats a big no no in my book as well.
I'm curious if prepending ASN's would fall under 'discrimination/degrade/interfere'
Agreed 100%. Best Buy is better at it than any other brick n morter store out there. Walmarts their only real competition but then they compete with everyone. :-)
That wasn't a rebrand, it was sold off to circuit city, now some other company prob runs it. I use to work for the @#$%@shack at one of their most profitable stores in a district of ~30. Because we weren't selling the 'right' products we constantly were treated like trash, the fact that other stores were running at a loss didn't matter, they sold cell phones so they obviously knew what they were doing. That is until those stores got shutdown because some bean counter finally saw the numbers and told the sales/marketing jackoffs to stfu. The people in charge have been ruining it the last decade trying to be mini a Best Buy instead of focusing on what they actually did best, being the 7/11 of small electronics/parts, cables, and batteries, gd idiots.
If on return of your computer you reflash your bios with the latest version from XYZ corp you bought it from, will that kill the malware? Baring of course your wearing a tinfoil hat like one of the other replies here and think all machines are infected from the factory and none of the other real security analysts who go to places like defcon have caught it... That should work to protect your machine from this once you recover it, yes?
This all comes down to one thing. GPLv2 makes no guarantee that the source code released under it will work on the platform of choice and it *shouldn't*. Cygwin doesn't change that, another *nix emulation system for XYZ platform doesn't change that. The original posters in this thread argued that since the iphone isn't as open as they'd like it to be its basically anti-GPL and is immoral to port things to it. Which is bullshit. Since they only use that argument because the guys who did it are asking to be compensated for their time and money spent to port the project even though they freely release the source code for those savvy enough to do it themselves.
And back before the gcc compiler was a usable piece of technology people had to use borland to compile things which was waay more than $99 and no one complained about code being non gpl because of it. People just worked on the gcc until it became a usable compiler and then just about everyone switched to it. In Apples case they probably will constantly work to keep their compiler/programs incompatible with anything the community makes ... but if that occurs it just shows their character not the legality of porting or making GPL code for their platform. On the other hand they may release their SDK to the public and then it wont be a problem... time will tell. Although the fact that you can't even read their SDK license without either signing up to be a dev or using wikileaks tells me which way they'll go.
I don't see them mentioning it was a *nix derivative so your argument is moot.
Wait so guaranteed chains on you is freedom while potential chains in a projects fork that you can ignore because you can continue to use the open BSD release one is slavery? .... wow your world is messed up.
Wow, seriously, just wow. BSD is murder, fucking awesome. No wonder I love FreeBSD so much, I kill a kitten-of-the-sea every time I boot my pc.
BSD *is* less restrictive than GPL it does not force inclusion, it doesn't give you any rights over the original BSD code, only rights over your own version. Someone cannot kill a BSD project by making it proprietary. The main project is still out there, the fact that it might not have that nifty cool feature you'd love because someone wants 19.99 for it is irrelevant. BSD and GPL are two different ideologies. Neither is right/ethical/moral but BSD *is* less restrictive than GPL, that is just straight up facts not opinions or ethereal bullshit made up analogies. Whether you define those fewer restrictions as 'less free' because its fucking murder is between you and your psychiatrist.
If you don't want people to use your work for commercial gain don't release it under GPL, release it as freeware and don't share the source. You want to share the source so you can attract more developers, be prepared to have some of them make money off your work. It happens every time someone buys a linux distro or linux book after all, people making money off other peoples work... thats how society runs.
Which is why many projects continue to be GPLv2, prime example being the linux kernel.
Cydia and anything like it is a restricted market. Only users who have jailbreaked their phones can use it. Those who are unable to do so for technical or moral or legal reasons are left out in the cold while *all* iphone users can use the App Store except those who choose not to.
Thats a problem with the App Store, not with GPL. In theory someone else can do this, so in theory they are complying with the GPL, all else is irrelevant. The fact that you disagree or don't like the method, in the spirit of your own sig, is no proof that this is a case of non compliance.
Either insurance covers it, or the people paying their bills cover it.
I take it you've never run your own business with any kind of serious infrastructure? Insurance isn't cheap, free, or as responsive as you seem to think so. Insurance doesn't get your power fixed within hours of failure, the electric company does. The insurance company doesn't pay for it, the electric company does. Several weeks or months later they may be partially compensated by an insurance company or by the person who drove his car into the pole but *that night right when it broke* its the electric company.
The costs are built into the rates, and the lower usage you have, the higher your rate per KWH.
For serious industrial power users you are correct, but for at home users, at least out here in California you are incorrect. You have a base tier and once your outside that you begin to pay more per KWH and then there are other tiers beyond that where the price continues to rise. Now for industrial usage, such as a data center, yes power gets cheaper the more you use. But home users that isn't true universally.
... you are correct, for now. If this becomes the predominant trend though that will change. If things continue where self generated power becomes the predominate power usage it will become common that everyone connected to the grid will have a separate infrastructure charge. I hope this fee causes the cost per kw/hr to drop but by no means is that fee immoral or intolerable or 'greed pure and simple'. That is how it *should* be, the physical infrastructure should be a separate thing from the power carried over it. Someone has to pay to maintain it, either you directly or via government taxes, it sure as hell isn't some mythical insurance company that does it for free out of the kindness of their hearts.
As for your example about places that don't use power for months or whatever
Yes. On the part of the 50% who aren't drawing power during the day but do at night. This particular plan by the electric company may be flawed but the idea of paying a reasonable monthly fee to cover those repairs is fine. In fact how many people are using it isn't relevant in the grand scheme of things. The problem is if they charge something unreasonable to maintain the grid, historically it was never a problem since part of your per kw/hr charge was to maintain it and there was no efficient self generation possible. Now that system is changing and they are trying to figure out how to adapt to the new usage structure. Furthermore those who move to a fully self sufficient energy system and don't need the grid as a backup wont be effected by this, but if you have the grid there as a backup it is not unreasonable to expect a maintenance fee for it. Otherwise you'll just end up paying it in taxes and we all know the government does less with the money you give them than even a greedy, but not criminal, corporation. They at least have the motive of profit to provide service, the government bureaucrats couldn't give a damn.
Nope, that us why its a bad analogy. They *are* using the grid, the power usage is neutral but the grids connection is real, unlike the nonexistent connection in your voip/pots analogy.
When you buy a loaf of bread, do you get billed for an oven maintenance fee?
No, but then bakers aren't required to accept your homemade bread either, while the electric company has to accept your extra power. It's a rather important difference.
I haven't heard of one but by no means would I consider myself an expert on FOSS licensing, their great reads when your trying to fall asleep though. :)
... I'm not sure they can be compatible. BSD is perfectly content with having their code wrapped into commercial software without compensation, even without credit in some cases. OS/X being the poster child of this example. While Apple shares code back to the community, something not required by BSD, they also locked down their kernel, something that they could never do with GPL code.
But if I were to offer my opinion
Then there is RMS, the founder of GPL, who specifically created his license to prevent something like that from ever occurring. In his world and in many that he has inspired, Apples usurping of BSD/FreeBSD for their own commercial gain is the worst thing that can happen. Everything they stand for abhors that scenario.
So while I am no expert on the legal standing of whether a hybrid license can exist, purely from an ideology stand point I can't imagine the two mixing. They are oil and vinegar, both tasty and delicious in the salad that is FOSS, but they can never mesh except in userland.