True. I was going to say "democratic and capitalistic" (in Ayn Rand sense), but I didn't really want to get into that discussion.
I figured people would at least see that even though democracies can turn bad *some* of the time (it is conceivable, though highly unprobable, that a country like, say, Canada could vote another Hitler in); totalitarian/dictatorship/communist turn bad *all* the time.
There is not one communist/dictatorial country in existence that provides the kind of freedoms that most democracies do.
Besides even a bad democracy can at least claim that it is acting on behalf of the people (majority of people are evil in this case). Castro and co. cannot possibly say that. An unelected dictator cannot claim to speak for "his" citizens.
Wow that is remarkably myopic. You might want to watch how you throw around absolutes like that. Democratic does not always mean good or just. Open any history book for an example of that.
True. I was going to say "democratic and capitalistic" (in Ayn Rand sense), but I didn't really want to get into that discussion.
I figured people would at least see that even though democracies can turn bad *some* of the time (it is conceivable, though highly unprobable, that a country like, say, Canada could vote another Hitler in); totalitarian/dictatorship/communist turn bad *all* the time.
There is not one communist/dictatorial country in existence that provides the kind of freedoms that most democracies do.
What you keep in your house is, in general, your own stuff, so if you fail to properly secure it only you are hurt. But the school is keeping _other_ people's stuff (their sensitive information) and failing to properly secure it.
My friend left his wallet at my house. Its still lying on my kitched counter.
Got a substantial reason to write this guy off as an idiot?
I didn't do that. I didn't even know who he is. The only thing you said about Gerald Schroeder, is that he is an MIT trained physicist with a number of published scientific articles. Evolution, and Natural Selection are generally within the realm of Biology. So, ergo, in conclusion, therefore.... his views on this particular topic are as good as that of your average./er.
Question, are any of his articles (those which are published in reputable scientific journals) on the existence of God, or on Intelligent Design? Peer review is important in Science, you see....
Or do your presuppositions prevent you from acknowledging there is scholarship on the other side of the debate?
There is no debate. Proponents of Intelligent Design would like everyone to believe there is debate. There is, in fact, massive consensus that the Theory of Natural Selection gives an adequate explanation of the diversity of species on Earth. There is also consensus that anything which has to do with Intelligent Design is unprovable Pseudoscience.
Tell me, what evidence would you need to discard Intelligent Design? Any? I think we both know there isn't. You believe in God, and therefore you believe in Intelligent Design. Case closed. Why try to mix Science in there?
Many reasons, but the primary one is a book written by Gerald Schroeder, who is an MIT-trained physicist with over 60 published articles in scientific journals.
What can a physicist tell me about Evolution and Theory of Natural Selection?
By this, I mean that the process of evolution is a thinking intelligent process. Or to state it another way: Evolution is intelligent.
This means that all signs of evolution also will be signs of intelligent design, simply because evolution is a form of intelligence.
Its a wrong way to think about this (even though I understand your point).
Evolution as it pertains to Natural Selection is simply a process driven by random mutations. It is as intelligent as a ball falling towards the ground due to gravity. You shouldn't use the word "intelligent" at all. It confuses the issue.
There is however a form of Evolution driven by Intelligent Design. Genetically modified foods and animal breeding for specific traits are examples.
You won't share? When in history has there existed a corporation that has consolidated all markets?
Any company that establishes a monopoly has to abide by these rules. If not, they are punished by the law for the good of everyone, just like every other law.
What rules? Monopoly laws in general are a complete joke. "Leverage monpoly to take over other markets".. pfft. The Windows OS consists of many applications, if you want to be technical MS could be fined for anyone of them.
So far MS has only been burned over IE and Media Player. Do you think they'll get burned with their Longhorn's Desktop search or the upcoming ad-ware scanner? The answer is we don't know. Monopoly laws are so subjective that MS doesn't know if their actions to provide these tools will result in a $500 million fine 5 years down the line.
This is all moot with respect to the original argument. Capitalism "allows" a monopoly to do what they please with their property. End of story.
When convicted of breaking the law, abusing the legal system, lying to the courts, and bribing officials, pay huge sums of money to the political parties and wait.
Before the anti-trust suit, MS had minimal number of lobbyists in Washington. Apple, Netscape, IBM had a substantial presence. Look what happened.
I hear it works for murderers who stole billions of dollars from their victims as well
MS never killed anyone, never ran sweatshops, and I hear they treat their employees really well. What is your problem?
One monopoly is leveraged into another then another and eventually there is only one company.
And you're basing this on what? Intuition?
Monopolies break all the advantages offered by capitalism. They remove all incentive for innovation, supply an demand, and for making the customer happy.
Allowing MS to leverage one monopoly into multiple monopolies breaks capitalism, which is why monopolies have to follow special rules. Get it?
Economics will tell you competition good, monopoly bad; but economics != capitalism. Under capaitalism a monopoly can do whatever it wants with its property, just as every other company, big or small. One set of rules for everyone. Get it?
What the EU is doing to Microsoft of disgusting. They are doing this because they can, because MS is such an easy target.. American target and because EU knows MS has money.
Its one thing to lay a fine and require the unbundling of Media Player from the Operating System , I don't believe its right, but its liveable and doable. Its a completely different matter to force MS to give up its property by forcing it to relicense it under Open Source. This just seems so wrong for a governing body to do.
Besides I think the Microsoft monopoly is crock. Maybe it was true 10 years ago, but not anymore. If MS jacks up the price of Windows to $2000, you will see a lot of people switching to Linux. Linux can do all the essential tasks just as well as Windows, sometimes better, sometimes cheaper. People aren't switching (or switching but not as fast as some slashdotters would like to) because they don't really want to.
No, he can licence it to other people under a different licence, and he can stop distributing it under the GPL, but he can't revoke licences that have already been granted.
If I write some code and give it to you under the GPL, then sell it to IBM/Apple/MS, you still have your GPLed copy with all the rights that affords you.
The original copyright holder remains the owner and can revoke the permission that he grants you through the GPL. A license is just that, a license to use or make use of a property not belonging to you. Its not a contract which states that as long as you follow your end, the owner has to follow his.
There is nothing in the GPL that makes in irrevocable.
No it doesn't. From what I understand the copyright holder (e.g. code contributor) can always relicense his contribution. It just hasn't been done yet and tested in court.
One possible bad outcome from this is that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate any of it.... and the Phone company ( was one big one, then baby bells and now...) and the cable companies and do what ever they want.....the courts are going more and more big bisness..
If the FCC has no jurisdiction over cable systems, how are courts going "more and more big business"?
Surely you don't suggest the FCC can just arbitrarly choose what they have authority over?
It can if it's licensed under the variant of the BSD license that does not have the advertising clause - that clause is incompatible with the GPL (since it puts further constraints on what you can/cannot do with the software)
Right. I was refering to the modified BSD licensed with no advertising clause.
To add some minor nitpicking, you can add GPL'ed code to a *BSD system, too; you just cannot distribute the whole thing under a BSD license then
Which defeats the purpose of having a BSD (non-advertising) license.
If you already have code lying around, consider releasing that under both the GPL (so it can be incorporated into Linux etc.) and the BSD license (for the *BSD systems).
BSD licensed code can easily be incorporated into Linux. You just can't go the other way (GPLed code in *BSD systems).
Slashdot Mirror
Anakin's hand was sliced off in Episode 2.
True. I was going to say "democratic and capitalistic" (in Ayn Rand sense), but I didn't really want to get into that discussion.
I figured people would at least see that even though democracies can turn bad *some* of the time (it is conceivable, though highly unprobable, that a country like, say, Canada could vote another Hitler in); totalitarian/dictatorship/communist turn bad *all* the time.
There is not one communist/dictatorial country in existence that provides the kind of freedoms that most democracies do.
Besides even a bad democracy can at least claim that it is acting on behalf of the people (majority of people are evil in this case). Castro and co. cannot possibly say that. An unelected dictator cannot claim to speak for "his" citizens.
Wow that is remarkably myopic. You might want to watch how you throw around absolutes like that. Democratic does not always mean good or just. Open any history book for an example of that.
True. I was going to say "democratic and capitalistic" (in Ayn Rand sense), but I didn't really want to get into that discussion.
I figured people would at least see that even though democracies can turn bad *some* of the time (it is conceivable, though highly unprobable, that a country like, say, Canada could vote another Hitler in); totalitarian/dictatorship/communist turn bad *all* the time.
There is not one communist/dictatorial country in existence that provides the kind of freedoms that most democracies do.
The way America has bullied Cuba for years, simply because they disagree with it's political system is appaling.
Wow.
Relativism can only take you so far my friend. This "political system" that the US just happens to disagree with, is a military dictatorship.
A democratic nation, any democratic nation, will always have moral highground over a non-democratic one.
What you keep in your house is, in general, your own stuff, so if you fail to properly secure it only you are hurt. But the school is keeping _other_ people's stuff (their sensitive information) and failing to properly secure it.
My friend left his wallet at my house. Its still lying on my kitched counter.
I think you just answered your own question.
Got a substantial reason to write this guy off as an idiot?
I didn't do that. I didn't even know who he is.
The only thing you said about Gerald Schroeder, is that he is an MIT trained physicist with a number of published scientific articles. Evolution, and Natural Selection are generally within the realm of Biology. So, ergo, in conclusion, therefore.... his views on this particular topic are as good as that of your average
Question, are any of his articles (those which are published in reputable scientific journals) on the existence of God, or on Intelligent Design? Peer review is important in Science, you see....
Or do your presuppositions prevent you from acknowledging there is scholarship on the other side of the debate?
There is no debate. Proponents of Intelligent Design would like everyone to believe there is debate. There is, in fact, massive consensus that the Theory of Natural Selection gives an adequate explanation of the diversity of species on Earth. There is also consensus that anything which has to do with Intelligent Design is unprovable Pseudoscience.
Tell me, what evidence would you need to discard Intelligent Design? Any? I think we both know there isn't. You believe in God, and therefore you believe in Intelligent Design. Case closed. Why try to mix Science in there?
Many reasons, but the primary one is a book written by Gerald Schroeder, who is an MIT-trained physicist with over 60 published articles in scientific journals.
What can a physicist tell me about Evolution and Theory of Natural Selection?
By this, I mean that the process of evolution is a thinking intelligent process. Or to state it another way: Evolution is intelligent.
This means that all signs of evolution also will be signs of intelligent design, simply because evolution is a form of intelligence.
Its a wrong way to think about this (even though I understand your point).
Evolution as it pertains to Natural Selection is simply a process driven by random mutations. It is as intelligent as a ball falling towards the ground due to gravity. You shouldn't use the word "intelligent" at all. It confuses the issue.
There is however a form of Evolution driven by Intelligent Design. Genetically modified foods and animal breeding for specific traits are examples.
List of things that are dying:
...
- BSD
- Apple
- Bob Barker
- VIDEO GAMES!
Awesome
And you're basing this on what? Intuition?
History.
You won't share? When in history has there existed a corporation that has consolidated all markets?
Any company that establishes a monopoly has to abide by these rules. If not, they are punished by the law for the good of everyone, just like every other law.
What rules? Monopoly laws in general are a complete joke. "Leverage monpoly to take over other markets".. pfft. The Windows OS consists of many applications, if you want to be technical MS could be fined for anyone of them.
So far MS has only been burned over IE and Media Player. Do you think they'll get burned with their Longhorn's Desktop search or the upcoming ad-ware scanner? The answer is we don't know. Monopoly laws are so subjective that MS doesn't know if their actions to provide these tools will result in a $500 million fine 5 years down the line.
This is all moot with respect to the original argument. Capitalism "allows" a monopoly to do what they please with their property. End of story.
When convicted of breaking the law, abusing the legal system, lying to the courts, and bribing officials, pay huge sums of money to the political parties and wait.
Before the anti-trust suit, MS had minimal number of lobbyists in Washington. Apple, Netscape, IBM had a substantial presence. Look what happened.
I hear it works for murderers who stole billions of dollars from their victims as well
MS never killed anyone, never ran sweatshops, and I hear they treat their employees really well. What is your problem?
One monopoly is leveraged into another then another and eventually there is only one company.
And you're basing this on what? Intuition?
Monopolies break all the advantages offered by capitalism. They remove all incentive for innovation, supply an demand, and for making the customer happy.
Allowing MS to leverage one monopoly into multiple monopolies breaks capitalism, which is why monopolies have to follow special rules. Get it?
Economics will tell you competition good, monopoly bad; but economics != capitalism. Under capaitalism a monopoly can do whatever it wants with its property, just as every other company, big or small. One set of rules for everyone. Get it?
What the EU is doing to Microsoft of disgusting. They are doing this because they can, because MS is such an easy target.. American target and because EU knows MS has money.
Its one thing to lay a fine and require the unbundling of Media Player from the Operating System , I don't believe its right, but its liveable and doable. Its a completely different matter to force MS to give up its property by forcing it to relicense it under Open Source. This just seems so wrong for a governing body to do.
Besides I think the Microsoft monopoly is crock. Maybe it was true 10 years ago, but not anymore. If MS jacks up the price of Windows to $2000, you will see a lot of people switching to Linux. Linux can do all the essential tasks just as well as Windows, sometimes better, sometimes cheaper. People aren't switching (or switching but not as fast as some slashdotters would like to) because they don't really want to.
We don't need the military to drive computer innovation..we're doing fine.
No, he can licence it to other people under a different licence, and he can stop distributing it under the GPL, but he can't revoke licences that have already been granted.
If I write some code and give it to you under the GPL, then sell it to IBM/Apple/MS, you still have your GPLed copy with all the rights that affords you.
The original copyright holder remains the owner and can revoke the permission that he grants you through the GPL. A license is just that, a license to use or make use of a property not belonging to you. Its not a contract which states that as long as you follow your end, the owner has to follow his.
There is nothing in the GPL that makes in irrevocable.
That makes the gpl inrrevokeable.
No it doesn't. From what I understand the copyright holder (e.g. code contributor) can always relicense his contribution. It just hasn't been done yet and tested in court.
One possible bad outcome from this is that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate any of it.
If the FCC has no jurisdiction over cable systems, how are courts going "more and more big business"?
Surely you don't suggest the FCC can just arbitrarly choose what they have authority over?
They've just really turned the wrong way in the last few years, and it's hurting us all.
So you want more, or less FCC regulation over the market?
And while M$ buys 90% of the time the technology or licenses it, FOSS actually does develop their stuf from scratch.
What do you call a project fork then? Starting from scratch?
It can if it's licensed under the variant of the BSD license that does not have the advertising clause - that clause is incompatible with the GPL (since it puts further constraints on what you can/cannot do with the software)
Right. I was refering to the modified BSD licensed with no advertising clause.
To add some minor nitpicking, you can add GPL'ed code to a *BSD system, too; you just cannot distribute the whole thing under a BSD license then
Which defeats the purpose of having a BSD (non-advertising) license.
If you already have code lying around, consider releasing that under both the GPL (so it can be incorporated into Linux etc.) and the BSD license (for the *BSD systems).
BSD licensed code can easily be incorporated into Linux. You just can't go the other way (GPLed code in *BSD systems).
Am I sympathetic to an industry which has stolen from me and everyone else for years and now has the tables turned
You don't really understand the concept of 'theft'.
Its not stealing if you give your money willingly.
I will start buying music again when I can pay between 40 and 50 pence per track for a file without DRM.
Oh come on. I know you don't really believe that. Why the farce?
Wouldn't a company who owns over 90% of the market essentially dictate what is an what isn't a standard?
If Microsoft doesn't back CSS2 then CSS2 has no chance of becoming a standard.