If I tell you that parties who get less than 5% of the votes won't enter the Bundestag (parlament) at all, you''' probably see that too as a sing of the government fixing the result of the election. Even though that is part of the laws for elections for some 60 years.
The nature of it doesn't change just because it's been in place a long time. It's a way of silencing minority views.
(And just in case you want to know why there is that 5% limit: Ever seen a parlament with lots of small parties in it? It's damn near impossible to get work done.)
Government efficiency and liberty of the population could generally be considered mutually exclusive. Give me small inefficient governments any day.
What does lines of code even represent as harm ? Your original project is intact, all your lines of code are there, it still works, it's still available.
You have your original code, you do not have the modified code. According to the license terms, your expected (and legally required) gain would have been the GPL'd source of the modifications. Thus the lack of that code, available for your use and further modification, is the harm. It is quantifiable and provable.
Like you're free to make your own sandwich, you're free to make your own music.
Which I do.
If you want to listen to what the RIAA is peddling
Which, for the most part, I don't.
you pay their price.
Which, for the ones I want, I do.
Why is that so hard to understand ? What you think is a fair value for the music doesn't matter and isn't justification for infringing on the RIAA's copyright.
Here's where you've entered a world of error. First, you've assumed I infringe copyright just because I made a tongue in cheek comment about copying a sandwich. This assumption of guilt on very scant evidence is exactly what many people object to about the *AAs. The attitude you have, which the *AAs share, is a major part of the problem regarding implementing copyright law right now. Second, your assertion that what people think is a fair price doesn't matter reveals you lack any sort of understanding about how a market works. Saying it isn't justification for downloading is very similar to saying if alcohol is made illegal then people shouldn't drink it. That type of thinking is perhaps interesting in theory, but implementing public policy based on it is disastrous in practice.
As for "justification for infringing on the RIAA's copyright", since unrestrained copying is the natural state and copyright law institutes a state granted monopoly, it is copyright itself, rather than infringement, that requires justification. Indeed, that has already been done long ago, the justification is the work passing into the public domain. That's why the US constitution requires that the exclusive right is for a limited time. The current terms of life + 70 years, from the perspective of a currently living person, is not limited, stupid court rulings notwithstanding. As such, it is very difficult to persuade people to comply with copyright law out of a sense of morality or justice. All that is left is to threaten them or brainwash them into compliance. Bring back truly limited terms, I suggest no more than half the average life span, and I am squarely in the pro-copyright camp. I haven't heard a complete and compelling argument in favour of copyright in the absence of doing that.
I did make a conscious decision to never have my own children
I highlighted the words that make what you did completely different than what was proposed by the GP.
Think how popular sex is, yet rape is a crime. The use of force vs the right to choose makes a vast difference in how people perceive something. Many people who would applaud your decision would be willing to fight wars to prevent the GP's idea taking hold.
Usually I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but what if he was bribed to essentially throw his own case in order to set some kind of legal precedent?
The legal precedent that if you are sued and you admit liability you lose the case is well established in every jurisdiction. There was no need for bribery to establish that. If there is a conspiracy, it would be for the purpose of the media headlines, ie: propaganda value instead of legal value.
Would you push this just as hard in a case involving the GPL and a company ignoring it?
Since the expected benefit in such a case would be the GPL'd code of the modifications then the harm is easy to prove, not in a dollar amount, but in lines of code. If the defendant was not willing to release their code, I suppose they could take the route of paying statutory damages.
We never had guns in the first place. When handguns were finally outlawed, it affected only a few thousand people out of sixty-odd million. As far as I know the mainland UK has never had a culture of individual gun ownership.
I don't know, what do you think of this article: http://www.thesconce.com/ukreport.html
In a material sense, Britain today has much less of a "gun culture" than at any time in its recent history. A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge's even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns; there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called "Saturday Night Specials." Conan Doyle's Dr. Watson, dropping a revolver in his pocket before going out about town, illustrates a real commonplace of that time. Beatrix Potters' journal records a discussion at a small country hotel in Yorkshire, where it turned out that only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver.
Keep in mind that the right to bear arms as a protection in a "Bill of Rights" was copied by the US from England, as was the various US "Castle Doctrine" laws.
Yet another eugenicist. You get to decide who is worthy to breed, compulsory sterilisation or prison camps for the rest.
You're the type of person that makes it necessary for the rest of us to maintain the right to keep and bear arms.
Too many people on the planet as it is.
Show us you have the courage of your convictions, kill yourself. Oh, that's right, it's the others who are the too many, you'd be one of the chosen ones, correct?
Yep, you're right, but that doesn't change the fact that if you are going against the wishes/intent of the author who mistakenly chose a license that doesn't do what they wanted you're not being terribly nice. Might even consider it unethical.
I think there is a reasonable expectation that the actual terms of the licence reflect the wishes/intent of the author. I don't expect to have to personally contact every author of anything I find on the internet "Hey you know those license terms, do you really mean it? Can I really, really use it under the stated conditions? Is there anything else you'd like? Are you sure?"
The GPL is not that hard to understand. It very clearly states that selling copies is allowed. If you don't want that and apply the GPL to your work anyway, you're not the sort of person who should be taken seriously by anyone. People like that don't belong in the adult world, they belong in a playground where they can scream "IT'S NOT FAIR!" an fit in with the other children. The poster of this story is under no obligation, moral, ethical or otherwise to stop selling copies. What are they supposed to do, abandon months of work they undertook legally and in good faith? Let someone who can't be bothered reading the license to their own work torpedo their business? Sounds to me like they've been more than fair.
It is available, yes. But it is not really usable with the full freedoms of the GPL. While this may be legal for use under the GPL, I would consider this very unethical.
I agree. Furthermore, because I'm not a programmer, I effectively can't modify the software. One more way in which this release is not compliant with the GPL, I'm supposed to be guaranteed the freedom to modify it. Somebody should put a stop to this unethical behaviour. </dumbass>
You seem to be missing the point here. Since this is the iPhone, there is no way to freely compile the source. You could either use other tools and a jailbroken iPhone, but the legality of that is questionable. You could pay $99 to be able to publish your app, and put it on the app store for free, but (assuming apple approves it) you would lose $99.
You can never compile source at no charge, it requires hardware. I refer you to my other post. If there is any violation here, it is on the part of the dev trying to impose further restrictions, ie: no commercial distribution.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC2 Preamble...When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3 "1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
It's not a loophole, it is deliberately, specifically granted by the terms of the licence that you have the right to sell copies. Not only that, but:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3 "6.... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
As such, it is the original author who is attempting to violate the GPL by attempting to impose further restrictions. If they didn't like ALL the terms of the licence, they shouldn't have used the GPLv2 to release their work.
I have been forced to interact with far more people with a G.E.D, that are quite frankly, making tremendous achievements just tying their shoes in the morning.
On the other hand, I've had the thankless task of trying to get people who did graduate school to do their work. Very few will attend well to their job without constant supervision if then, perhaps as a result of being conditioned for 12 years in an environment with constant supervision. I am certainly in favour of education, don't get me wrong on that, but the current system is producing less than stellar results.
Give me a worker keen to learn anything required who got their first job at 12-13 years old over someone who finished school because they were told they had to any day of the week. Obviously that does not apply to jobs requiring professional expertise.
If I had my time again, I would get an apprenticeship in one of the engineering trades as a path to a degree. It would be my recommendation to many people rather than an overextended period of classroom only learning.
I refer you to this article by Gregg Easterbrook: http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2004/10education_easterbrook.aspx It's an interesting read. It doesn't refute your points, but I would suggest that the type of person who will become successful is likely to get educated as much as the other way around. I find my own lack of formal education to restrict what employment I can get, but not so much what business I can own. I can make plenty of money without a formal education (but not without education). My circumstances in my teen years were not conducive to my finishing school, but I was taught a love of learning from an early age (My parents read regularly and my grandmother was a marine biologist) so despite not having a formal education, I do admit that I had an educational advantage that many people don't. As a result, I'm the type of person who will succeed. Many people who drop out though are just not interested in education, formal or otherwise, so it's no surprise that would correlate to lower income.
That said, I do still plan to get a degree. I just don't need it for the money. Ambition, work ethic and desire to learn would be quite sufficient for many people. It is no surprise that those attributes will tend to produce people with a formal education though.
It's public domain in Australia (+ Canada and others). Which raises an interesting question for the "copyright violation is theft" crowd. If a US citizen goes on holiday to Australia and legally downloads 1984 and starts reading it, then returns to the US without deleting the book from their device, at what point are they stealing?
Did the steal it when they land in the US?
Did the steal it when the plane enters US airspace?
Did the steal it when (if) they get caught?
Did the steal it when they boarded the plane?
Did the steal it when they (legally in Australia) downloaded the book?
Is it sometime before, which was the reason they were sent to Australia anyway?
Enquiring minds want to know.
If your answer was going to be that the seller stole it, so the customer didn't steal but received stolen property, then lets assume that the seller travelled to Australia to download it:
Did they steal it when they land in the US?
Did they steal it when the plane enters US airspace?
Did they steal it when (if) they get caught?
Did they steal it when they boarded the plane?
Did they steal it when they (legally in Australia) downloaded the book?
Is it sometime before, which was the reason they were sent to Australia anyway?
Did they steal it when they sold it? If so, by what legal mechanism does selling a legally obtained copy become stealing?
How about if I, as an Australian, download this book and start selling copies, quite legal in Australia since it's public domain:
If I sell the book to a US citizen here on Australian soil and they return to the US with it, it is still stolen? Who stole it and when?
If I email a copy to a US citizen, who is stealing the book?
If the American is using a Canadian email provider, when does it become stolen? If I email it to them without their prior knowledge, did collecting their email constitute an act of theft? Or am I a thief for sending a public domain book to an email server in a country where the book is also public domain? Perhaps using foreign email servers is theft?
If I make 1000 copies on CD in Australia, then travel to the US to sell them, is it theft? Every copy was legally made in Australia, no copying takes place in the US, where it would be illegal. Am I protected by first sale doctrine or another law so I can sell my legally obtained books, or are they now stolen? Does legally entering the US with legally obtained books constitute an act of theft?
Tell me, please. I don't want to be a thief! I have friends in the US who might enjoy this book. It's mine, I legally obtained it, I can legally copy it. How can I be sure I'm not stealing this book?
Really, it's time to drop the "copying = theft", there are too many real-world situations where it doesn't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny.
No, because then Amazon or another company can just do it again, "Oops, our bad" whenever they like.
From TFS: The suit... asks that Amazon be legally blocked from improperly accessing users' Kindles in the future...
That's to put a stop to the practice, hopefully permanently. The appropriate action would have been to purchase the necessary distribution rights at least for the books already sold. Stopping companies deleting or modifying individuals data without permission is absolutely something that should have the force of law, not just require an apology. There's far more at stake here than just these couple of books.
The chemicals can be dangerous but there are guidelines for their safe use. People can and do ignore them at their own peril.
People can and do ignore them, not just to their own peril but also the peril of the people who eat that produce.
Organic won't change that. They'll just be using different chemicals, and more of them.
Not so, as I said "there are many other methods used to reduce or eliminate the need for spraying". Organic growers are not always replacing chemical treatments with an alternative spray.
It's akin to blaming the antifreeze manufacturer because your radiator leaks and your dog got sick from licking the antifreeze off of the floor.
No, it's not akin to that at all. I didn't blame the chemical manufacturers, I just prefer not to have poison sprayed on my food. That doesn't mean I never eat food that's been sprayed. It also doesn't mean that I'm happy to eat poison just because it's an organic one.
... tearing down an entire industry because some people are too lazy to look out for their own health is Nanny State Bullshit.
Sounds right to me. If I had proposed new regulations or the destruction of an industry you'd have made a relevant point. I prefer to eat foods without poison on them. That's nothing to do with Nanny State. See my sig? I mean it.
As to the flame weeding, I don't know anyone that uses it on the kind of large farms you see here in the midwest where the bulk of our corn and soy is grown.
I have used it in commercial production. How many other people do is unknown to me. As I said "there are many other methods used to reduce or eliminate the need for spraying". I doubt it would suit soy production much, I've never grown soy so I won't try to comment on a suitable alternative. Anyway, I didn't even say chemical use could or should be totally eliminated or anything similar. I just said "Personally I'm not a big fan of poisons sprayed on my food regardless of what this study says", I don't see why anyone would take issue with that. In response to me expressing a personal preference to not have spray in my food you said I was running my mouth off. and of promoting a nanny state. Both are baseless accusations, quite rude, really. I wouldn't have thought that wanting food without sprays could be generally considered proof of ignorance, but you made the assumption I didn't know what I was talking about, even though your own experience of farmers not always practising the best safety is a real problem IMO. Your points haven't done anything to address my concerns, nor given me any new information other than the anecdote about your rat poison drinking teacher.
Does anyone ever consider reading the thread below a post before weighing in and giving us the benefit of their "knowledge"?
If you'd done that, you would have found out I have worked in both organic and non-organic farming. It's unlikely that you are about to give me any info on this topic that I don't know already unless by chance you are in agricultural research specializing in organic production.
I worked on what was one of only two organic pineapple farms in Australia at the time. Other pineapple producers in the area would insist that organic production of pineapples wasn't even possible. Their thinking is too locked into the systems they currently use to understand. There's a lot more to it than just not spraying, or replacing a synthetic spray with an organic alternative. Most of what you think you know about organic production may well be based on information propagated by people with such flawed understanding.
Trying to replace the effects of chemical use without changing your agricultural systems away from broadacre monoculture farming is not going to result in much change, but that's what many statements made regarding organic farming are based on. That doesn't mean you can't have industrialized organic farming, but it needs a more comprehensive approach than "don't use chemical X".
Slashdot Mirror
If I tell you that parties who get less than 5% of the votes won't enter the Bundestag (parlament) at all, you''' probably see that too as a sing of the government fixing the result of the election. Even though that is part of the laws for elections for some 60 years.
The nature of it doesn't change just because it's been in place a long time. It's a way of silencing minority views.
(And just in case you want to know why there is that 5% limit: Ever seen a parlament with lots of small parties in it? It's damn near impossible to get work done.)
Government efficiency and liberty of the population could generally be considered mutually exclusive. Give me small inefficient governments any day.
What does lines of code even represent as harm ? Your original project is intact, all your lines of code are there, it still works, it's still available.
You have your original code, you do not have the modified code. According to the license terms, your expected (and legally required) gain would have been the GPL'd source of the modifications. Thus the lack of that code, available for your use and further modification, is the harm. It is quantifiable and provable.
Like you're free to make your own sandwich, you're free to make your own music.
Which I do.
If you want to listen to what the RIAA is peddling
Which, for the most part, I don't.
you pay their price.
Which, for the ones I want, I do.
Why is that so hard to understand ? What you think is a fair value for the music doesn't matter and isn't justification for infringing on the RIAA's copyright.
Here's where you've entered a world of error. First, you've assumed I infringe copyright just because I made a tongue in cheek comment about copying a sandwich. This assumption of guilt on very scant evidence is exactly what many people object to about the *AAs. The attitude you have, which the *AAs share, is a major part of the problem regarding implementing copyright law right now. Second, your assertion that what people think is a fair price doesn't matter reveals you lack any sort of understanding about how a market works. Saying it isn't justification for downloading is very similar to saying if alcohol is made illegal then people shouldn't drink it. That type of thinking is perhaps interesting in theory, but implementing public policy based on it is disastrous in practice.
As for "justification for infringing on the RIAA's copyright", since unrestrained copying is the natural state and copyright law institutes a state granted monopoly, it is copyright itself, rather than infringement, that requires justification. Indeed, that has already been done long ago, the justification is the work passing into the public domain. That's why the US constitution requires that the exclusive right is for a limited time. The current terms of life + 70 years, from the perspective of a currently living person, is not limited, stupid court rulings notwithstanding. As such, it is very difficult to persuade people to comply with copyright law out of a sense of morality or justice. All that is left is to threaten them or brainwash them into compliance. Bring back truly limited terms, I suggest no more than half the average life span, and I am squarely in the pro-copyright camp. I haven't heard a complete and compelling argument in favour of copyright in the absence of doing that.
I did make a conscious decision to never have my own children
I highlighted the words that make what you did completely different than what was proposed by the GP.
Think how popular sex is, yet rape is a crime. The use of force vs the right to choose makes a vast difference in how people perceive something. Many people who would applaud your decision would be willing to fight wars to prevent the GP's idea taking hold.
He isn't advocating anyone being killed, he's advocating less children being born.
He said there were too many people on the planet, he has the option of making an immediate difference.
And I would bet a reasonable sum of money he'd be willing to not breed
I'm not against anyone making that choice, I'm against one group of people making that choice for another group.
Usually I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but what if he was bribed to essentially throw his own case in order to set some kind of legal precedent?
The legal precedent that if you are sued and you admit liability you lose the case is well established in every jurisdiction. There was no need for bribery to establish that. If there is a conspiracy, it would be for the purpose of the media headlines, ie: propaganda value instead of legal value.
excuse me. but there is NO other way of putting this. the reason for this shit is precisely american legal system's favoring the rich.
So in your country if you are poor you can admit liability when you are sued with no consequences? Where is that, and can you provide a citation?
Does that mean you would take the sandwich without paying or just paying what you thought was appropriate instead of the price put on by the owner?
No, I will make a copy of the sandwich.
One of the biggest I'd go for is proof of harm.
Would you push this just as hard in a case involving the GPL and a company ignoring it?
Since the expected benefit in such a case would be the GPL'd code of the modifications then the harm is easy to prove, not in a dollar amount, but in lines of code. If the defendant was not willing to release their code, I suppose they could take the route of paying statutory damages.
We never had guns in the first place. When handguns were finally outlawed, it affected only a few thousand people out of sixty-odd million. As far as I know the mainland UK has never had a culture of individual gun ownership.
I don't know, what do you think of this article:
http://www.thesconce.com/ukreport.html
In a material sense, Britain today has much less of a "gun culture" than at any time in its recent history. A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge's even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns; there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called "Saturday Night Specials." Conan Doyle's Dr. Watson, dropping a revolver in his pocket before going out about town, illustrates a real commonplace of that time. Beatrix Potters' journal records a discussion at a small country hotel in Yorkshire, where it turned out that only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver.
Keep in mind that the right to bear arms as a protection in a "Bill of Rights" was copied by the US from England, as was the various US "Castle Doctrine" laws.
You're the type of person that makes it necessary for the rest of us to maintain the right to keep and bear arms.
Too many people on the planet as it is.
Show us you have the courage of your convictions, kill yourself. Oh, that's right, it's the others who are the too many, you'd be one of the chosen ones, correct?
Yep, you're right, but that doesn't change the fact that if you are going against the wishes/intent of the author who mistakenly chose a license that doesn't do what they wanted you're not being terribly nice. Might even consider it unethical.
I think there is a reasonable expectation that the actual terms of the licence reflect the wishes/intent of the author. I don't expect to have to personally contact every author of anything I find on the internet "Hey you know those license terms, do you really mean it? Can I really, really use it under the stated conditions? Is there anything else you'd like? Are you sure?"
The GPL is not that hard to understand. It very clearly states that selling copies is allowed. If you don't want that and apply the GPL to your work anyway, you're not the sort of person who should be taken seriously by anyone. People like that don't belong in the adult world, they belong in a playground where they can scream "IT'S NOT FAIR!" an fit in with the other children. The poster of this story is under no obligation, moral, ethical or otherwise to stop selling copies. What are they supposed to do, abandon months of work they undertook legally and in good faith? Let someone who can't be bothered reading the license to their own work torpedo their business? Sounds to me like they've been more than fair.
It is available, yes. But it is not really usable with the full freedoms of the GPL. While this may be legal for use under the GPL, I would consider this very unethical.
I agree. Furthermore, because I'm not a programmer, I effectively can't modify the software. One more way in which this release is not compliant with the GPL, I'm supposed to be guaranteed the freedom to modify it. Somebody should put a stop to this unethical behaviour. </dumbass>
Amen to that. I now feel have no choice but to spurn CentOS as I would spurn a rabid dog.
With a load of buckshot? That's a bit harsh!
You seem to be missing the point here. Since this is the iPhone, there is no way to freely compile the source. You could either use other tools and a jailbroken iPhone, but the legality of that is questionable. You could pay $99 to be able to publish your app, and put it on the app store for free, but (assuming apple approves it) you would lose $99.
You can never compile source at no charge, it requires hardware. I refer you to my other post. If there is any violation here, it is on the part of the dev trying to impose further restrictions, ie: no commercial distribution.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
...When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
"Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC2
Preamble
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
It's not a loophole, it is deliberately, specifically granted by the terms of the licence that you have the right to sell copies. Not only that, but:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3
"6.
As such, it is the original author who is attempting to violate the GPL by attempting to impose further restrictions. If they didn't like ALL the terms of the licence, they shouldn't have used the GPLv2 to release their work.
I guess if you want to put $10-20 devices in with all the other expensive PMPs, you can do that.
That's the low end they don't target. That's what I was talking about.
And an unsubsidized iPhone is actually a pretty normal price for a smartphone.
Smartphones are the top end of the phone market, also what I was talking about.
I have been forced to interact with far more people with a G.E.D, that are quite frankly, making tremendous achievements just tying their shoes in the morning.
On the other hand, I've had the thankless task of trying to get people who did graduate school to do their work. Very few will attend well to their job without constant supervision if then, perhaps as a result of being conditioned for 12 years in an environment with constant supervision. I am certainly in favour of education, don't get me wrong on that, but the current system is producing less than stellar results.
Give me a worker keen to learn anything required who got their first job at 12-13 years old over someone who finished school because they were told they had to any day of the week. Obviously that does not apply to jobs requiring professional expertise.
If I had my time again, I would get an apprenticeship in one of the engineering trades as a path to a degree. It would be my recommendation to many people rather than an overextended period of classroom only learning.
I refer you to this article by Gregg Easterbrook: http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2004/10education_easterbrook.aspx It's an interesting read. It doesn't refute your points, but I would suggest that the type of person who will become successful is likely to get educated as much as the other way around. I find my own lack of formal education to restrict what employment I can get, but not so much what business I can own. I can make plenty of money without a formal education (but not without education). My circumstances in my teen years were not conducive to my finishing school, but I was taught a love of learning from an early age (My parents read regularly and my grandmother was a marine biologist) so despite not having a formal education, I do admit that I had an educational advantage that many people don't. As a result, I'm the type of person who will succeed. Many people who drop out though are just not interested in education, formal or otherwise, so it's no surprise that would correlate to lower income.
That said, I do still plan to get a degree. I just don't need it for the money. Ambition, work ethic and desire to learn would be quite sufficient for many people. It is no surprise that those attributes will tend to produce people with a formal education though.
Who thought you could earn so much sucking dick. Here I've been doing it in back alleys for a nickel.
I suspect that's not his business model, but regarding your claim about own activities, I believe you.
He was responding to a comment that proposed getting rid of G.E.D., not claiming that dropping out is a better path to success.
It's public domain in Australia (+ Canada and others). Which raises an interesting question for the "copyright violation is theft" crowd. If a US citizen goes on holiday to Australia and legally downloads 1984 and starts reading it, then returns to the US without deleting the book from their device, at what point are they stealing?
Did the steal it when they land in the US?
Did the steal it when the plane enters US airspace?
Did the steal it when (if) they get caught?
Did the steal it when they boarded the plane?
Did the steal it when they (legally in Australia) downloaded the book?
Is it sometime before, which was the reason they were sent to Australia anyway?
Enquiring minds want to know.
If your answer was going to be that the seller stole it, so the customer didn't steal but received stolen property, then lets assume that the seller travelled to Australia to download it:
Did they steal it when they land in the US?
Did they steal it when the plane enters US airspace?
Did they steal it when (if) they get caught?
Did they steal it when they boarded the plane?
Did they steal it when they (legally in Australia) downloaded the book?
Is it sometime before, which was the reason they were sent to Australia anyway?
Did they steal it when they sold it? If so, by what legal mechanism does selling a legally obtained copy become stealing?
How about if I, as an Australian, download this book and start selling copies, quite legal in Australia since it's public domain:
If I sell the book to a US citizen here on Australian soil and they return to the US with it, it is still stolen? Who stole it and when?
If I email a copy to a US citizen, who is stealing the book?
If the American is using a Canadian email provider, when does it become stolen? If I email it to them without their prior knowledge, did collecting their email constitute an act of theft? Or am I a thief for sending a public domain book to an email server in a country where the book is also public domain? Perhaps using foreign email servers is theft?
If I make 1000 copies on CD in Australia, then travel to the US to sell them, is it theft? Every copy was legally made in Australia, no copying takes place in the US, where it would be illegal. Am I protected by first sale doctrine or another law so I can sell my legally obtained books, or are they now stolen? Does legally entering the US with legally obtained books constitute an act of theft?
Tell me, please. I don't want to be a thief! I have friends in the US who might enjoy this book. It's mine, I legally obtained it, I can legally copy it. How can I be sure I'm not stealing this book?
Really, it's time to drop the "copying = theft", there are too many real-world situations where it doesn't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny.
No, because then Amazon or another company can just do it again, "Oops, our bad" whenever they like.
... asks that Amazon be legally blocked from improperly accessing users' Kindles in the future...
From TFS: The suit
That's to put a stop to the practice, hopefully permanently. The appropriate action would have been to purchase the necessary distribution rights at least for the books already sold. Stopping companies deleting or modifying individuals data without permission is absolutely something that should have the force of law, not just require an apology. There's far more at stake here than just these couple of books.
The chemicals can be dangerous but there are guidelines for their safe use. People can and do ignore them at their own peril.
People can and do ignore them, not just to their own peril but also the peril of the people who eat that produce.
Organic won't change that. They'll just be using different chemicals, and more of them.
Not so, as I said "there are many other methods used to reduce or eliminate the need for spraying". Organic growers are not always replacing chemical treatments with an alternative spray.
It's akin to blaming the antifreeze manufacturer because your radiator leaks and your dog got sick from licking the antifreeze off of the floor.
No, it's not akin to that at all. I didn't blame the chemical manufacturers, I just prefer not to have poison sprayed on my food. That doesn't mean I never eat food that's been sprayed. It also doesn't mean that I'm happy to eat poison just because it's an organic one.
... tearing down an entire industry because some people are too lazy to look out for their own health is Nanny State Bullshit.
Sounds right to me. If I had proposed new regulations or the destruction of an industry you'd have made a relevant point. I prefer to eat foods without poison on them. That's nothing to do with Nanny State. See my sig? I mean it.
As to the flame weeding, I don't know anyone that uses it on the kind of large farms you see here in the midwest where the bulk of our corn and soy is grown.
I have used it in commercial production. How many other people do is unknown to me. As I said "there are many other methods used to reduce or eliminate the need for spraying". I doubt it would suit soy production much, I've never grown soy so I won't try to comment on a suitable alternative. Anyway, I didn't even say chemical use could or should be totally eliminated or anything similar. I just said "Personally I'm not a big fan of poisons sprayed on my food regardless of what this study says", I don't see why anyone would take issue with that. In response to me expressing a personal preference to not have spray in my food you said I was running my mouth off. and of promoting a nanny state. Both are baseless accusations, quite rude, really. I wouldn't have thought that wanting food without sprays could be generally considered proof of ignorance, but you made the assumption I didn't know what I was talking about, even though your own experience of farmers not always practising the best safety is a real problem IMO. Your points haven't done anything to address my concerns, nor given me any new information other than the anecdote about your rat poison drinking teacher.
Does anyone ever consider reading the thread below a post before weighing in and giving us the benefit of their "knowledge"?
If you'd done that, you would have found out I have worked in both organic and non-organic farming. It's unlikely that you are about to give me any info on this topic that I don't know already unless by chance you are in agricultural research specializing in organic production.
I worked on what was one of only two organic pineapple farms in Australia at the time. Other pineapple producers in the area would insist that organic production of pineapples wasn't even possible. Their thinking is too locked into the systems they currently use to understand. There's a lot more to it than just not spraying, or replacing a synthetic spray with an organic alternative. Most of what you think you know about organic production may well be based on information propagated by people with such flawed understanding.
Trying to replace the effects of chemical use without changing your agricultural systems away from broadacre monoculture farming is not going to result in much change, but that's what many statements made regarding organic farming are based on. That doesn't mean you can't have industrialized organic farming, but it needs a more comprehensive approach than "don't use chemical X".