The changing of justices means little in the grand scheme of our system of law. The current state of Federal law and how our constitution works is fairly stable and is not going to change drastically.
For example, the two recent cases on journalist's protected sources and the eminent domain cases are merely logical extensions of previous court rulings. There have been no drastic changes in the black letter law.
It has been well know among lawyers that journalists could go to jail for failing to reveal their sources.
It has also been well known that the government could take private property and give it to a private individual for a public use. How far the government could go were the questions the court resolved this past week.
With the main corpus of our law unchanging, there are a few areas that could be changed by a supreme court justices vote, most notably abortion rights and the right to privacy in your home. (For the most part, even if the federal law changes, there are quite a few states where u could still get an abortion...or you could go to europe...etc. Its not like they are going to outlaw blowjobs or something. Wait, thats sodomy! Oh shit!)
However, the most important issue up for grabs is how the supreme court interpretes the constitution and statutes by using the judicial philosophy of Strict constructionism. (Go to this link for an interesting discussion of the different hottly debated philosphies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism)
On a serious note, if those g-d damn advertising pop-ups that masquerade as links piss you off, download the firefox web browser (if you haven't already), and install Greasemoney. Then navigate to http://dunck.us/collab/GreaseMonkeyUserScripts and do a quick search for tomshardware which will lead you to a script called Dumbtext. Then right click and install. Make sure greasemonkey is active and reload tomshardware or any other page that uses intellilinks. Tada...the ads are gone!
Now only if there was a script to get rid of those damn Next Page links and view the entire article on one sight...fusker, perhaps?
Since nothing in the Constitution says that the government *can* take property...it's very reasonable to propose that eminment domain is technically unconstitutional.
Firstly, the fifth amendment, AMENDED the Constitution. Therefore, it is internally consistent.
Secondly, simple logic dictates that if "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation," is true, then the contra-positive, "Private property can be taken for public use with compensation" is true. (It also follows that "Private property can not be taken for private use with or without compensation".)
It is also clear that the founders intended the federal government to own property:
Article IV, Section III
"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States..."
...it is still wrong in the sense that it's a violation of the "God given rights" of free men. Hence, any individual who has his property siezed under "eminent domain" is well within his/her rights to take up arms and defend their property against an act of unauthorized aggression.
Woah!! I think that is a tad extreme. I would imagine that violent resistance would be appropraite if your property was taken without compensation. Or for a clearly private purpose without a public benefit.
We do have a social contract...the constitution. And just because you believe that your "god given rights" have been violated does not mean you can just take up arms. You have to follow a process first.
If a developer or a government wants some land bad enough, let them negotiate for it on the free market...We just need to let the free market work."
Well...the constitution does NOT say anything about a free market economy. It only guarentees a republican form of government.
Article IV, Section 4 states that the "United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..."
And the Takings clause I quoted above doesn't say "fair-market compensation". It says "just compensation". Which I think are close to the same thing.
We don't need eminent domain to have a functioning society.
Ideally, this would be true if markets functioned efficiently. But they don't. Your example of a property owner asking for $10 gazillion is an example of a market failure. Adam Smith understood that the free market needed some government regulation to avoid market failures. Why should society be punished for this type of market failure? This is why we have eminent domain and a provistion for just compensation. To promote the general welfare (Preamble).
I do not understand why most libertarians fail to understand this subtle point about capitalism and free markets and the positive role of government. I believe it is a failure to completely understand the legal underpinnings our system of government. The concepts and underlying ideas of our system of government are not easy to learn and are easy to misinterpret.
There is a lot of room to debate this constitutional issue. Arguing that the government does not have the right to take property ignores 200+ years of history and case law and the entire purpose of the fifth amendment. It is a silly and baseless argument.
Guess we'll have to amend the Fifth Amendment and take out the last sentence that says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Then, we'll never have a way to construct highways, build schools, have landfills, construct bridges, build townhalls, or put aside land for our natural wonders in National Parks. I think your proposal is well-thought out brilliant idea! *dripping sarcasm*
However, I do agree with the gist of your comment - I don't think its nice when the government takes away someone's property. But, what are the alternatives?
As the majority opinion points out, this isn't as revolutionary as so many conservative slashdotter's are making it out to be:
"Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future "use by the public" is the purpose of the taking..."
However, "[n]either of these propositions, however, determines the disposition of this case."
What the court is asked to decide is whether the taking of property by the State could "be executed pursuant to a 'carefully considered' development plan."
Furthermore, the concurring opinion states that "A court applying rational-basis review under the Public Use Clause should strike down a taking that, by a clear showing, is intended to favor a particular private party, with only incidental or pretextual public benefits...."
So, what is the new law here? That the State can condemn private property under a genuine community development plan.
Not so unreasonable...until you're the one who is losing your property. But, you do get paid something approximating the fair market value...so, at least you can get a new house...hopefully. *Sigh* I wasn't that impressed with the dissent's opinion...but I do agree that private property rights are being eroded slightly. All the more reason to strengthen State Taking's laws...
Arg! The original post was supposed to be funny!! I got a good laugh out of seeing it get mod'ed as informative.
But seriously...the point was...how can you say 10% of consumer websites are not firefox friendly if you only test 100 websites??? I am sure the UK has more than 100 consumer websites. And for the record...100 is a piss poor sample size for any study. Do they even define what a consumer website is?
From my own anecdotal experience, I only have problems with about 1 webpage not displaying properly every week that I visit while using firefox. That website is usually Slate, a Microsoft site.
Any company that writes code to specifically cater to only one browser is shortsighted and not business savy. As the study suggests, companies should wake up and smell the coffee. (no, that was not a Java joke...)
Odeon (http://www.odeon.co.uk/ a major cinema chain has received criticism for months for accessibility issues - even now its' opening 'splash page' seems at first glance to be working fine but click on the 'enter' button and Firefox users are offered a blank page.
On the Jobcentreplus (http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/ home page, Firefox users find that the 'Job search' button opens a new page, but the user can't perform a search, because the first choice "Select a Job Group from the list" is an empty box.
Online insurance site, http://www.insurance.co.uk/ run by Lloyds TSB works, but gives the user the visual impression that it is broken - menu items have 'missing images' icons in Firefox, but not IE.
Similarly, a FTSE100 tobacco company, British American Tobacco's website (http://www.bat.com/ effectively hides most of it's pages from Firefox users - their menu system doesn't show sub-menu choices if you're not using IE."
Well, thats 4 websites...so, if thats 10%, that means that there are only 40 websites in the UK, according to my Athlon XP 3200+ Clawhammers FPU...
Having had bad experiences with video cards in the past, I always wait a few months before buying the latest video card. I want to see at least 4 or 5 reviews of the hardware before I buy it. Sure, one website says its 50% faster than the old card, but just wait until one site says that it sucks...or doesn't work well with your favorite game....
I read the study that you are using for the basis of your opinion piece.
The methodology is to compare the number of references made by journalists to "left-wing" and "right-wing" think-tanks. The underlying assumption is that liberals will cite left-wing think-tanks more often than right-wing think-tanks. This is a bad assumption.
The way to determine media bias is to look at what the journalist is saying and determine if what is written is fact or opinion. If it is an opinion, one then determines what category (Right, Left, Center, Other) it falls under. Then you try to determine if the opinion was that of the reporter or the paper...and if it has a connection to an ideology. Its mostly guesswork.
Thus, the NY Times having 300 Headlines stating "X Soldiers Killed in Iraq" is not indicative of bias...since it is just reporting facts.
I just tried out the beta version of the new aol start page at http://startpage.aol.com/beta.adp and it looks like a nice interface for your average web user.
Its not that complicated, the ads don't scream at you too much...and it is customizable.
That being said, it is still a "me-too" start page experience. AOL is going to have to offer more than an email account to be profitable.
Apparently, the LA Times moderators have a problem with obscene language and dirty pictures. It should not be that difficult to reject posts with dirty pictures...and dirty words.
Secondly, the wiki users themselves, and not the LA Times, should be able to remove the offensive images easily. (I hope...but know better...that it was probably Goatsie pictures...yuk.)
Hopefully the wiki, which I never had a chance to view, will be back online soon.
....in that they will eventually both be eclipsed by a newly emerging company at some point down the road which has a better proprietary search algorithm with a better plan to capitalize on it. I see both Yahoo and Google having reached a technological plateau.
So, while the respondents who were polled wanted laws to protect them against identity theft, computer viruses and spam, they didn't trust Congress and the FTC to make the right decisions. Shocking.
So, whats the solution? None is offered, but it is suggested that government action + industry action + "something else" is needed.
Check out the irs.gov webpage and click on the federal e-file button and you will find various commercial providers who will allow you to e-file for free provided that you earn less than $30,000 - there are even websites that will allow anyone, no matter what the income, to file federally for free.
However, lots of these programs charge for a state return and might not be able to deal with high levels of complexity.
I used TaxAct.com 's service this year and was fairly happy with the price ($16 for federal and one state e-file) which allowed me to include all of my relatively simple deductions.
I think more States should sponsor free e-filing.
All of these arguments about a flat tax or fair taz or revising the tax code ignore the fact that even if you repeal the entire tax code (all 40 or so volumes annotated volumes of the IRS code), quite a few of these regulations will be grandfathered...so, there will be 2 tax systems in effect for 30 years. Chew on that for a while.
Two possibilities on the type of tax you had to pay: It was either a "use tax" (not likely) or a special tax levied on any cigarrettes sold in the state (most likely). These special taxes (you know those stamps you see on the carton) are not part of the "sales tax" regime.
My suggestion is to stop smoking. Or, just switch to a brand you can buy tax-free at your friendly local neighborhood indian reservation.
....if the 95% of state government information that I needed was online. So, who wants to volunteer to scan the millions of deeds in the county court house?
Capitialism and arbitrage at work. Apple gets a cheaper component...and instead of passing the savings to the consumer...it passes the $$ to the shareholders. Lovely.
I made the Apple to PC switch in 1998 after 4 years of problems with my Mac in college. Printing was an issue. Playing games was an issue. Transfering files was problematic. Nearly anything I wanted to do with my computer was difficult.
Don't get me wrong...I liked the Mac...and I hated how complicated the PC was. Windows 3.x was awful for a new computer user to work with. The Mac was a good option. But it was expensive.
And after observing all of my Mac using friends getting screwed by Apple time and time again (expensive repairs, equipment that went obsolete after a year), and seeing how happy my buddies with their Gateways were, I made the switch. And then I made the switch away from Gateway to a custom built PC.
I was part of the Mac Fanatic camp for those 4 years as an undergrad...and now I look back and realize how misguided I was. I even recently walked into a Mac Store to try out the new Macs...and I found the OS and included applications clunky and hard to use. Not intuititive at all.
Irony: The GPL is Copyrighted
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
When I read that "The GPL is the Literary Work of Richard M. Stallman" and that "Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator," I knew that the GPL has some MAJOR philosophic problems.
I think the GPL's basic idea of free software is correct, to wit, that software should be freely studied, copied, modified, reused, redistributed and shared.
But, the GPL uses a copyright as the weapon to enforce the GPL. I think this is a mistake.
Personally, I like simplicity in a general form license. If you can't keep it simple, then you should use a more tailored legal document. That is why I like the MIT/BSD form licenses.
The problem with the Free Software philosophy is that you premise your gift of software with restrictions. When you make a gift, you should make the gift free of restrictions.
No one likes to recieve an open-ended conditional gift. "Here, enjoy your new watch, Son. But if you ever move to Montana, your sister gets it." It is just silly. And hard to enforce. You should be able to do what you want to do with something that you have received as a gift.
Can someone tell me why it is so horrible if a company uses "free" or "open source" code without making their product "free" or "open source"? Doesn't this stifle innovation? What evil are we trying to prevent here?
Plus, there is a huge problem that the "Grandma" thread writers have only scratched the surface of. Sure, there is a problem with ownership transfers after death. But what about the problem of a perpetual gift?
For the most part, forced perpetual transfers of property are not allowed in most legal systems. So, for example, you couldn't transfer property like this: "from Me to my son, and then to my son's son, and then to my son's son's son, etc" (A fee tail male, to you lawyers out there). This would just become a fee simple...outright ownership of the property in the son.
How is this different than forcing someone to give something away for free, forever? Isn't there a eneral principle of the free alienability of property in our culture?
Will GPL copyrighted code ever be allowed to become someones outright property?
I started off on my Linux adventure with a Live Linux CD...knoppix, i believe.
The only problem is that some live cds do not work on all computers. I tried running knoppix on my old 300Mhz PII Gateway...no luck...not enough memory. Plus, you can't save files with a lot of distros. Sometimes the internet doesn't even work.
Live CDs are a nice toy though, it demonstrates the power of the computer....its a gateway to the world of linux.
Live Distros are not a panacea. They aren't for grandma. But they are a great hobby toy for a computer enthusiast.
Slashdot Mirror
The changing of justices means little in the grand scheme of our system of law. The current state of Federal law and how our constitution works is fairly stable and is not going to change drastically.
For example, the two recent cases on journalist's protected sources and the eminent domain cases are merely logical extensions of previous court rulings. There have been no drastic changes in the black letter law.
It has been well know among lawyers that journalists could go to jail for failing to reveal their sources.
It has also been well known that the government could take private property and give it to a private individual for a public use. How far the government could go were the questions the court resolved this past week.
With the main corpus of our law unchanging, there are a few areas that could be changed by a supreme court justices vote, most notably abortion rights and the right to privacy in your home. (For the most part, even if the federal law changes, there are quite a few states where u could still get an abortion...or you could go to europe...etc. Its not like they are going to outlaw blowjobs or something. Wait, thats sodomy! Oh shit!)
However, the most important issue up for grabs is how the supreme court interpretes the constitution and statutes by using the judicial philosophy of Strict constructionism.
(Go to this link for an interesting discussion of the different hottly debated philosphies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism)
Why does this poor excuse for an interview get on slashdot, when my submitted story on Java Penis Pumps got rejected?
I was wondering why I hadn't been hit on my any pakistani perverts today while in chat rooms....
On a serious note, if those g-d damn advertising pop-ups that masquerade as links piss you off, download the firefox web browser (if you haven't already), and install Greasemoney. Then navigate to http://dunck.us/collab/GreaseMonkeyUserScripts and do a quick search for tomshardware which will lead you to a script called Dumbtext. Then right click and install. Make sure greasemonkey is active and reload tomshardware or any other page that uses intellilinks. Tada...the ads are gone!
Now only if there was a script to get rid of those damn Next Page links and view the entire article on one sight...fusker, perhaps?
Firstly, the fifth amendment, AMENDED the Constitution. Therefore, it is internally consistent.
Secondly, simple logic dictates that if "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation," is true, then the contra-positive, "Private property can be taken for public use with compensation" is true. (It also follows that "Private property can not be taken for private use with or without compensation".)
It is also clear that the founders intended the federal government to own property:
Article IV, Section III
"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States..."
Woah!! I think that is a tad extreme. I would imagine that violent resistance would be appropraite if your property was taken without compensation. Or for a clearly private purpose without a public benefit.
We do have a social contract...the constitution. And just because you believe that your "god given rights" have been violated does not mean you can just take up arms. You have to follow a process first.
If a developer or a government wants some land bad enough, let them negotiate for it on the free market...We just need to let the free market work."
Well...the constitution does NOT say anything about a free market economy. It only guarentees a republican form of government.
Article IV, Section 4 states that the "United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..."
And the Takings clause I quoted above doesn't say "fair-market compensation". It says "just compensation". Which I think are close to the same thing.
We don't need eminent domain to have a functioning society.
Ideally, this would be true if markets functioned efficiently. But they don't. Your example of a property owner asking for $10 gazillion is an example of a market failure. Adam Smith understood that the free market needed some government regulation to avoid market failures. Why should society be punished for this type of market failure? This is why we have eminent domain and a provistion for just compensation. To promote the general welfare (Preamble).
I do not understand why most libertarians fail to understand this subtle point about capitalism and free markets and the positive role of government. I believe it is a failure to completely understand the legal underpinnings our system of government. The concepts and underlying ideas of our system of government are not easy to learn and are easy to misinterpret.
There is a lot of room to debate this constitutional issue. Arguing that the government does not have the right to take property ignores 200+ years of history and case law and the entire purpose of the fifth amendment. It is a silly and baseless argument.
Guess we'll have to amend the Fifth Amendment and take out the last sentence that says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Then, we'll never have a way to construct highways, build schools, have landfills, construct bridges, build townhalls, or put aside land for our natural wonders in National Parks. I think your proposal is well-thought out brilliant idea! *dripping sarcasm*
However, I do agree with the gist of your comment - I don't think its nice when the government takes away someone's property. But, what are the alternatives?
Ok, RTFC. (Read the freakin Case): http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-10 8.ZS.html
As the majority opinion points out, this isn't as revolutionary as so many conservative slashdotter's are making it out to be:
"Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future "use by the public" is the purpose of the taking..."
However, "[n]either of these propositions, however, determines the disposition of this case."
What the court is asked to decide is whether the taking of property by the State could "be executed pursuant to a 'carefully considered' development plan."
Furthermore, the concurring opinion states that "A court applying rational-basis review under the Public Use Clause should strike down a taking that, by a clear showing, is intended to favor a particular private party, with only incidental or pretextual public benefits...."
So, what is the new law here? That the State can condemn private property under a genuine community development plan.
Not so unreasonable...until you're the one who is losing your property. But, you do get paid something approximating the fair market value...so, at least you can get a new house...hopefully. *Sigh* I wasn't that impressed with the dissent's opinion...but I do agree that private property rights are being eroded slightly. All the more reason to strengthen State Taking's laws...
Arg! The original post was supposed to be funny!! I got a good laugh out of seeing it get mod'ed as informative.
But seriously...the point was...how can you say 10% of consumer websites are not firefox friendly if you only test 100 websites??? I am sure the UK has more than 100 consumer websites. And for the record...100 is a piss poor sample size for any study. Do they even define what a consumer website is?
From my own anecdotal experience, I only have problems with about 1 webpage not displaying properly every week that I visit while using firefox. That website is usually Slate, a Microsoft site.
Any company that writes code to specifically cater to only one browser is shortsighted and not business savy. As the study suggests, companies should wake up and smell the coffee. (no, that was not a Java joke...)
From the actual study located at http://www.scivisum.co.uk/press-releases/200506_Fi refox_Web_Test_Study.htm
"Guilty websites
Odeon (http://www.odeon.co.uk/ a major cinema chain has received criticism for months for accessibility issues - even now its' opening 'splash page' seems at first glance to be working fine but click on the 'enter' button and Firefox users are offered a blank page.
On the Jobcentreplus (http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/ home page, Firefox users find that the 'Job search' button opens a new page, but the user can't perform a search, because the first choice "Select a Job Group from the list" is an empty box.
Online insurance site, http://www.insurance.co.uk/ run by Lloyds TSB works, but gives the user the visual impression that it is broken - menu items have 'missing images' icons in Firefox, but not IE.
Similarly, a FTSE100 tobacco company, British American Tobacco's website (http://www.bat.com/ effectively hides most of it's pages from Firefox users - their menu system doesn't show sub-menu choices if you're not using IE."
Well, thats 4 websites...so, if thats 10%, that means that there are only 40 websites in the UK, according to my Athlon XP 3200+ Clawhammers FPU...
Having had bad experiences with video cards in the past, I always wait a few months before buying the latest video card. I want to see at least 4 or 5 reviews of the hardware before I buy it. Sure, one website says its 50% faster than the old card, but just wait until one site says that it sucks...or doesn't work well with your favorite game....
I read the study that you are using for the basis of your opinion piece.
The methodology is to compare the number of references made by journalists to "left-wing" and "right-wing" think-tanks. The underlying assumption is that liberals will cite left-wing think-tanks more often than right-wing think-tanks. This is a bad assumption.
The way to determine media bias is to look at what the journalist is saying and determine if what is written is fact or opinion. If it is an opinion, one then determines what category (Right, Left, Center, Other) it falls under. Then you try to determine if the opinion was that of the reporter or the paper...and if it has a connection to an ideology. Its mostly guesswork.
Thus, the NY Times having 300 Headlines stating "X Soldiers Killed in Iraq" is not indicative of bias...since it is just reporting facts.
...of the expensive attorney to get you out of jail and all of the infrastructure you've destroyed?
I just tried out the beta version of the new aol start page at http://startpage.aol.com/beta.adp and it looks like a nice interface for your average web user.
Its not that complicated, the ads don't scream at you too much...and it is customizable.
That being said, it is still a "me-too" start page experience. AOL is going to have to offer more than an email account to be profitable.
Apparently, the LA Times moderators have a problem with obscene language and dirty pictures. It should not be that difficult to reject posts with dirty pictures...and dirty words. Secondly, the wiki users themselves, and not the LA Times, should be able to remove the offensive images easily. (I hope...but know better...that it was probably Goatsie pictures...yuk.) Hopefully the wiki, which I never had a chance to view, will be back online soon.
....in that they will eventually both be eclipsed by a newly emerging company at some point down the road which has a better proprietary search algorithm with a better plan to capitalize on it. I see both Yahoo and Google having reached a technological plateau.
So, while the respondents who were polled wanted laws to protect them against identity theft, computer viruses and spam, they didn't trust Congress and the FTC to make the right decisions. Shocking.
n ternet_Security_Survey_June_2005.pdf
So, whats the solution? None is offered, but it is suggested that government action + industry action + "something else" is needed.
Read the full study at https://www.csialliance.org/resources/pdfs/CSIA_I
Check out the irs.gov webpage and click on the federal e-file button and you will find various commercial providers who will allow you to e-file for free provided that you earn less than $30,000 - there are even websites that will allow anyone, no matter what the income, to file federally for free.
However, lots of these programs charge for a state return and might not be able to deal with high levels of complexity.
I used TaxAct.com 's service this year and was fairly happy with the price ($16 for federal and one state e-file) which allowed me to include all of my relatively simple deductions.
I think more States should sponsor free e-filing.
All of these arguments about a flat tax or fair taz or revising the tax code ignore the fact that even if you repeal the entire tax code (all 40 or so volumes annotated volumes of the IRS code), quite a few of these regulations will be grandfathered...so, there will be 2 tax systems in effect for 30 years. Chew on that for a while.
....is it visible from earth? *ducks*
Two possibilities on the type of tax you had to pay: It was either a "use tax" (not likely) or a special tax levied on any cigarrettes sold in the state (most likely). These special taxes (you know those stamps you see on the carton) are not part of the "sales tax" regime.
My suggestion is to stop smoking. Or, just switch to a brand you can buy tax-free at your friendly local neighborhood indian reservation.
....if the 95% of state government information that I needed was online. So, who wants to volunteer to scan the millions of deeds in the county court house?
Capitialism and arbitrage at work. Apple gets a cheaper component...and instead of passing the savings to the consumer...it passes the $$ to the shareholders. Lovely.
Well...a 65,536 node computer that can do 360 Teraflops -- so quad core? piffle.
I made the Apple to PC switch in 1998 after 4 years of problems with my Mac in college. Printing was an issue. Playing games was an issue. Transfering files was problematic. Nearly anything I wanted to do with my computer was difficult. Don't get me wrong...I liked the Mac...and I hated how complicated the PC was. Windows 3.x was awful for a new computer user to work with. The Mac was a good option. But it was expensive. And after observing all of my Mac using friends getting screwed by Apple time and time again (expensive repairs, equipment that went obsolete after a year), and seeing how happy my buddies with their Gateways were, I made the switch. And then I made the switch away from Gateway to a custom built PC. I was part of the Mac Fanatic camp for those 4 years as an undergrad...and now I look back and realize how misguided I was. I even recently walked into a Mac Store to try out the new Macs...and I found the OS and included applications clunky and hard to use. Not intuititive at all.
When I read that "The GPL is the Literary Work of Richard M. Stallman" and that "Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator," I knew that the GPL has some MAJOR philosophic problems.
I think the GPL's basic idea of free software is correct, to wit, that software should be freely studied, copied, modified, reused, redistributed and shared.
But, the GPL uses a copyright as the weapon to enforce the GPL. I think this is a mistake.
Personally, I like simplicity in a general form license. If you can't keep it simple, then you should use a more tailored legal document. That is why I like the MIT/BSD form licenses.
The problem with the Free Software philosophy is that you premise your gift of software with restrictions. When you make a gift, you should make the gift free of restrictions.
No one likes to recieve an open-ended conditional gift. "Here, enjoy your new watch, Son. But if you ever move to Montana, your sister gets it." It is just silly. And hard to enforce. You should be able to do what you want to do with something that you have received as a gift.
Can someone tell me why it is so horrible if a company uses "free" or "open source" code without making their product "free" or "open source"? Doesn't this stifle innovation? What evil are we trying to prevent here?
Plus, there is a huge problem that the "Grandma" thread writers have only scratched the surface of. Sure, there is a problem with ownership transfers after death. But what about the problem of a perpetual gift?
For the most part, forced perpetual transfers of property are not allowed in most legal systems. So, for example, you couldn't transfer property like this: "from Me to my son, and then to my son's son, and then to my son's son's son, etc" (A fee tail male, to you lawyers out there). This would just become a fee simple...outright ownership of the property in the son.
How is this different than forcing someone to give something away for free, forever? Isn't there a eneral principle of the free alienability of property in our culture?
Will GPL copyrighted code ever be allowed to become someones outright property?
Some questions to consider...
I started off on my Linux adventure with a Live Linux CD...knoppix, i believe.
The only problem is that some live cds do not work on all computers. I tried running knoppix on my old 300Mhz PII Gateway...no luck...not enough memory. Plus, you can't save files with a lot of distros. Sometimes the internet doesn't even work.
Live CDs are a nice toy though, it demonstrates the power of the computer....its a gateway to the world of linux.
Live Distros are not a panacea. They aren't for grandma. But they are a great hobby toy for a computer enthusiast.