I suppose that its availability as a tool at low/no upfront financial cost is a significant contribution when used for science, much the same as a way to distribute low/no cost lab equipment would be. Given two scientific applications of equal functionality, one freely available the other available at high cost, the free availability could be seen as a significant contribution regardless of only having equal technical merit.
I've been interested to see Ron Paul's strategy, which seems more aimed at a takeover of the Republican party than anything else. From early on in his campaign (which he never thought he could win, but used to promote his policies) he was encouraging people to join the republican party at all levels to influence the party for the future. I'll be interested to see what the republican party is like in 10-20 years, or if he ultimately has no effect.
It could be that a better strategy is to influence one of the two major parties by infiltration than to oppose as a smaller third party. Might even be able to get a "balance of power" situation in congress.
Yes, I take your point and at that price right now, not for me either. I semi-regularly, exceed 25 miles of driving in a day, but I could save the fuel from low milage days... still wouldn't completely suit without the second gas driven car though, so you're right. I've considered an ethanol powered motorbike for travel to work, but more as a fun project than for practical value.
Of course it is. It's not about the abolishment of private property, but about collective work toward a common goal. You know, the good part of communism.
From "The Communist Manifesto"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in
the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
What is this "communism" you speak of? It seem so different to that communism proposed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. I had this discussion with a fellow worker a few days ago. He praised the society on an island resort he had been to as "perfect communism".
Me: Do they call themselves communist?
Him: No.
Me: Do they kill the rich?
Him: No.
Me: If a man catches a fish can is it forcibly taken from him? (sharing fish with the ill was an example he used)
Him: No.
Me: Well it isn't communism then.
Communism was very clearly outlined in The Communist Manifesto. If words are to mean anything, then anything not conforming at least approximately to the description given by Marx and Engels ought not to be called communism. People working together for common good is by no means exclusive to communism.
That's not freedom of the recipient at all. In this case, I am the recipient. If by recipient you mean _my_ end customer, then that's frankly none of your damn business.
If you use someone else's code, copyright law says it is.
No, the redistribution creates a new recipient. The GPL protects the freedom of that recipient (and so on for infinite "generations" of recipients) BSDL does not. BSDL gives the freedom to first generation recipients only, albeit more freedom for that recipient.
GPL argument: protecting all generations of users (recipients) means freedom for everybody == more freedom.
BSD argument: more freedoms allowed, anyone can be a first generation recipient (of the original code) == more freedom.
According to court precedent, this is not the case when serious constitutional rights are abrogated. Companies are not allowed to cam the lady's restroom, nor are they allowed to engage in discriminatory polices on premises.. in the regular world the government has sued again and again for violation of constitutional rights based on this (think the civil rights era). Yet you say it's perfectly OK for webhosts to be capriciously discriminatory.
It's plain and simple.. if you don't hold large property owners to the same constitutional standards as the governments whose power they equal, you have ushered feudalism in through the back door.
I'm curious how you would have this dealt with if it was a case of second amendment rights rather than first.
I didn't keep track of usernames in the thread, I've been replying to you as if you're different people. If you're interested, I've replied to the same post you did here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=605137&cid=24110743
How many people really have the chance to create such backup plans? Where would a burger flipper work as a contractor? The low skill sectors have huge numbers of willing workers and not nearly enough work to fill all positions. Not everyone works in a field where they can choose their job so easily (and often those fields don't provide enough income to allow any serious saving either).
Everybody can work towards it. In my case, my circumstances during my teen years were not conducive to me finishing school. I haven't flipped burgers, but I started out as a seasonal fruit picker and farm labourer, which is at about the same level. I have over time also worked as an assistant office admin, in sales, truck driving, machinery operation, construction and in various manufacturing roles. Whatever it took, whatever I could get. For the operators licences that I have, I got them on my own time, they were not part of employer provided training. The point is that independence is something you obtain for yourself. You have to take it, it isn't really given to you.
I've had times when I've literally had to do things like punch a new hole in my belt due to losing weight from not having enough food. Only short term thankfully. I've had jobs with crappy wages and conditions, I've gone into business myself and had if fold and be back in employment again. It isn't easy. But if you let someone dictate the time you start work, the time you eat lunch, the time you finish work, the place you work and how much money you get paid, you're only kidding yourself if you think you're free. Adding protection against being fired is like requiring an additional lock on the inside of your cage.
The communists were right about one thing: you need to own the means of production. They were wrong about how to go about that and nearly everything else. For a burger flipper or similar level employee, here is what I would say as some steps towards independence:
1 - Read. It was illegal to teach slaves to read for a reason and that reason is that it is easier to become free if you are knowledgeable. If you can't afford books, use the library, the internet, buy second hand. Educate yourself in practical skills to provide things for yourself that you either can't get or have to pay someone else too much for now. Educate yourself in the liberal arts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts as much as you can, especially "grammar, rhetoric and logic" ie: how to think and communicate ideas. (Howto: read classic literature, join toastmasters, for logic try starting with Lewis Carrol's "The Game of Logic", cheap on amazon, cheaper at the project gutenberg). Learn about negotiating, sales and marketing. Learn to understand the ways you are being manipulated so you can counteract that. Learn how to negotiate for a job, wage rise and to promote your own products/services when you are ready.
2 - Buy tools.
Step one makes you capable of production (among other things) step two gives you the means of production. You are at this stage beginning to operate as a capitalist ie: you are acquiring possessions that enable you to increase benefit to yourself. Go for it. I've been going down this path for several years. I haven't attained the full measure of freedom I'm aiming for yet, I'm employed at the moment, but I am at the stage where my employers power holds no fear for me. I'm there because it suits my purpose, not because I'm trapped. Just yesterday, after I posted in this thread, we were temporarily stood down because we've been producing faster than we've been selling. It's not because of politics but still some people are quite distressed. Me, I'll work anyway, get some of my accumulated holidays paid out and put the money into investment. A few years ago I would have suffered loss with the rest of them. Among the wage earners, there are two millionaires at our site that I know of. They both got that way by what they did outside, not by just saving wages. Sure becoming a millionaire isn't likely for most, but they could back themselves up with enough savings/earning capacity to not fear a boss, even if losing a job would be inconvenient.
situation 2: Employer pays for legislation to fuck me over. I don't push for legislation in my favor as well. net result: Both have a harder time.
I presume you did a copy and paste and that "don't" is meant to be a "do".
So you can be content with the harder time you have as long as you can make someone else have a hard time too. Let me know how that system works out.
all men are not created equal, some are born into poverty where the only real option if they want to eat is to get a job at walmart while others are born into money where they can get a good education, learn how to run a company
I don't believe that people are in general incapable of running a business. All the skills and mindset can be learnt if you wish to seek the knowledge. I do believe that most people are effectively brainwashed to live dependant lives. It is difficult to overcome, but it is worth the effort to get out of the cage.
You believe that people are incapable and want the government to help them, increasing the size and power of the government at the expense of those people, all in the name of protecting their freedom and rights. I believe that they are capable of exercising their own freedom and rights. I find you view inherently insulting towards people and mine respectful, yet I know that most people will choose your view over mine. I don't understand why, and suspect that I don't want to either. I find it sad that people will sell themselves so cheaply.
Problem is: You can't really easily stop the first [corporations] from growing without hurting someones rights.
No limited liability (limitations on liability for your actions is not a right), no right to lobby government (individuals who are in corporations may, but only personal funding, any corporate funding resulting in mandatory disbanding and confiscation of assets for the company). Done.
When your company employs 10 people and doesn't own the local congressman it's no big problem for you to be able to fire your employees for holding political beliefs and operate a don't ask don't tell policy.
On the other hand things look different if you're a large company which is the only significant employer in a region,
The problems caused by the existence of large corporations with persons rights (but not responsibilities) won't be solved by regulating the behaviour of corporations, but their existence. Another reply I made in this thread gives a bit more of my view on this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=605137&cid=24096783
Keep in mind. Some things don't scale well.
Indeed, corporations and governments being two of them. More regulation won't help while you have a docile subservient population who believe they need one for their sustenance and the other for protection against the first, establishing the power of both at the expense of that population.
if you're political convictions are not worth X on what basis do you claim that they are worth listening to? Replace X with a fun range of things like "homelessness","your childrens wellbeing","your childrens education","starvation","a beating","your life" etc and you get a better idea of where that line leads.
"That line" doesn't lead there at all. Nobody has the responsibility to give you a job, a home, attend to your children's well being, education or your food supply. The requirement not to beat you or kill you is already covered by laws against assault and murder. If someone is homeless, jobless etc they have no legal recourse against me. I didn't do anything to them to make them incapable of self employment, let them make their own arrangements.
Like getting my elected officials to make sure my employeer doesn't use the massive ammount of power he has to fuck with my rights?
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness and continued employment with the employer of their choice (regardless of the employers wishes)?"
An employer who fires you is not doing anything to your rights, he is exercising his. Employment usually happens on the employer's property, paid for with the employer's money. What makes you think it is your right to enter his property and receive wages from his money unless it is by contract with him entered in to and continued willingly by both of you?
Companies lobby for enough laws aimed at fucking over my rights, why shouldn't I use my vote for to do the same to them?
Because then both you and your employer have lost your rights to the government.
As a disclaimer: I'm not an employer, just someone who has come to believe that the conditions of employment are not the problem, but the condition of being employed. I'd much rather lobby to have conditions more conducive to profitable self employment than to better conditions of employment. I am in general anti-employment, as a part of that I'm also anti corporations person-like rights. Any legal framework that entices people to give up their freedom for a paycheck is a net negative. I am of the opinion that wanting better employment is like wanting a cushion in your cage. The thing to be angry about is not that your cage isn't good enough, but that you are in a cage.
With the reasonable comes the unreasonable, while you'd want to restrict your employees from advocating killing you the next guy wants to prevent his employees from supporting the party he doesn't vote for.
1) We have secret ballots.
2) If your political convictions are not worth a job, on what basis do you claim that they are worth listening to?
It has always been understood that financial dependence compromises you. The basic nature of employment is subservience.
Check out Lawrence Lessig's video "Corruption - The Alpha Version". About 20 minutes in he starts talking about independence. The solution in my view is not to attempt to change the nature of employment, which won't work. If you let an employer be your sole source of income, you are dependent on them, and you are going to feel that bite you at some time (unless you've become so used to it that you don't notice).
My advice: if you need a job right now, start contracting or something in your own time, or at least save enough for a time of unemployment and have your resume and contacts up to date. If you aren't prepared to walk out of that job, you are dependent and you'd better understand that. You can either accept that as a permanent state, or you can do something about it, but crying foul or trying to get laws to protect you job isn't the thing to do. I've worked in jobs where they can't fire someone they want to get rid of, and you'd be better off leaving.
So would you also be against anonymous speach since it could enable someone in your employment who holds such views to keep you in the dark while spreading their views?
Doesn't really work to put words in someone's mouth. The whole legal system is based on "if we find out", yet most people still believe in the necessity of things like "probable cause" even if they agree with the laws in place.
If you're not paying someone 168 hours a week then what possible right do you have to say what they can and can't do in their time provided it's legal.
I didn't say they couldn't say it, didn't say it shouldn't be protected speech politically, just that they should not expect any benefit from me, including continued employment. If they are advocating things that are contrary to my interests I don't see any reason I should be compelled to do business with them, whether as an employee, supplier, customer or in any other way. If I think the benefits of doing business with them outweigh the costs, then that should be my decision, not the governments.
And I am suggesting that political speech protections should be extended to prevent retribution from employers.
I disagree. I have seen here on/. people advocate the view that it is justifiable to kill the owners of property in order to acquire it on the basis of "property is my birthright as a human being". It was expressed as part of a (communist) political view. Protected speech politically, but definitely grounds for instant dismissal from employment. Anyone who advocates in the political area the taking of my life or property ought have no expectation of any benefit from me, through employment or otherwise.
You just forgot to mention that they either have licenses (per-seat, for example), are hardware manufacturers (ergo, the software is just a commodity)
So they use a different business model than proprietary software vendors. That would seem fairly obvious by now, hardly something that needs to be brought up in every post on the subject in order to "keep it honest"
or dual-license (and therefore, are fucking hypocrites/wiseguys).
MS prefers that if you use software for free (argh! software for all, me hearties!) that you use theirs rather than their competitions so you will be accustomed to it and buy from them when you want to purchase software. People who dual license with open source make this legal for their customers instead of holding a threat against them. Oh the hypocracy! What sleazy wiseguys, providing software in a way that people want!
There is a LOT of BSD-style licensed code and libraries used within successful commercial code.
Binary only releases by companies do not qualify as open source. BSD releases by non-commercial organisations do not qualify as commercial. The fact that some closed commercial software has code that originated in a non-commercial open source release is not relevant to the GP's point. It is not commercial open source.
My other point still stands. Timothy McVeigh, the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombings, drove up to a federal building in a state with very liberal gun laws, parked his truck laden with explosives, and walked away. No one tried to stop him when he either approached the building in his truck or walked away afterwards.
Yes. If my point had been that all terrorists would be unsuccessful due to being killed by armed civilians, or that armed civilians are the only thing necessary to defend against terrorism, that would have been a really good counterpoint.
That was kind of my point.
I realized that part way through making the post but thought it was still worth clarifying. It isn't just demoralization though, there is quality of kills vs quantity (disrupt command structure), disruption to supply lines (.50 BMG round in engine block of supply trucks for example) destruction of other equipment.
Of course, the average citizen doesn't have the skills of a sniper, but 40 million people willing to take 1-2 shots then disappear would be exceedingly difficult to defeat. Especially by sending their sons/brothers against them.
Well, I didn't see anyone pull a gun on the 9/11 hijackers, did you?
Guns are banned on planes, yes? Nevertheless, hijackings were expected to end in the release of most or all of the passengers. This is no longer the expectation and peoples responses would be different now. Guns being banned on planes would negate any difference between the US and Oz attributable to gun laws obviously.
To think that terrorists would be more likely to get shot in the US is a laughable idea
1) "More likely" doesn't necessarily mean it is very likely. In a situation where a terrorist was able to be shot, it could happen in the US but not here in Oz where only police and security guards can carry except for very narrowly defined activities.
2) Kidnappings are sometimes carried out by terrorists and would be an example of an activity that would expose the terrorist to the danger of being shot, in the US. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2007/facts_and_figures_2007.pdf Kidnapping rose from 478 in 1996 (couple of years after our gun laws) to 725 in 2006. In addition, not every terrorist plans and executes their task well and discreetly, Richard Reid for example. Someone who bungled like that on US soil could certainly be shot and would have a higher chance of success in Australia or other place where the population is disarmed, like the UK.
In addition, it appears, among other things, that personal gun ownership part of the control of terrorism in Israel.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose that its availability as a tool at low/no upfront financial cost is a significant contribution when used for science, much the same as a way to distribute low/no cost lab equipment would be. Given two scientific applications of equal functionality, one freely available the other available at high cost, the free availability could be seen as a significant contribution regardless of only having equal technical merit.
I've been interested to see Ron Paul's strategy, which seems more aimed at a takeover of the Republican party than anything else. From early on in his campaign (which he never thought he could win, but used to promote his policies) he was encouraging people to join the republican party at all levels to influence the party for the future. I'll be interested to see what the republican party is like in 10-20 years, or if he ultimately has no effect.
It could be that a better strategy is to influence one of the two major parties by infiltration than to oppose as a smaller third party. Might even be able to get a "balance of power" situation in congress.
Yes, I take your point and at that price right now, not for me either. I semi-regularly, exceed 25 miles of driving in a day, but I could save the fuel from low milage days ... still wouldn't completely suit without the second gas driven car though, so you're right. I've considered an ethanol powered motorbike for travel to work, but more as a fun project than for practical value.
I don't travel 25 miles on most days and we are a two car family. We could convert 1 car over and it would work pretty well for us.
Have you been a housewife all this time without realizing it?
From "The Communist Manifesto" In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
What is this "communism" you speak of? It seem so different to that communism proposed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. I had this discussion with a fellow worker a few days ago. He praised the society on an island resort he had been to as "perfect communism".
Me: Do they call themselves communist?
Him: No.
Me: Do they kill the rich?
Him: No.
Me: If a man catches a fish can is it forcibly taken from him? (sharing fish with the ill was an example he used)
Him: No.
Me: Well it isn't communism then.
Communism was very clearly outlined in The Communist Manifesto. If words are to mean anything, then anything not conforming at least approximately to the description given by Marx and Engels ought not to be called communism. People working together for common good is by no means exclusive to communism.
That's not freedom of the recipient at all. In this case, I am the recipient. If by recipient you mean _my_ end customer, then that's frankly none of your damn business.
If you use someone else's code, copyright law says it is.
No, the redistribution creates a new recipient. The GPL protects the freedom of that recipient (and so on for infinite "generations" of recipients) BSDL does not. BSDL gives the freedom to first generation recipients only, albeit more freedom for that recipient.
GPL argument: protecting all generations of users (recipients) means freedom for everybody == more freedom.
BSD argument: more freedoms allowed, anyone can be a first generation recipient (of the original code) == more freedom.
When I was on dial-up I bought my first copy. About $20 with a book that was very helpful to me.
I'm curious how you would have this dealt with if it was a case of second amendment rights rather than first.
I didn't keep track of usernames in the thread, I've been replying to you as if you're different people. If you're interested, I've replied to the same post you did here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=605137&cid=24110743
How many people really have the chance to create such backup plans? Where would a burger flipper work as a contractor? The low skill sectors have huge numbers of willing workers and not nearly enough work to fill all positions. Not everyone works in a field where they can choose their job so easily (and often those fields don't provide enough income to allow any serious saving either).
Everybody can work towards it. In my case, my circumstances during my teen years were not conducive to me finishing school. I haven't flipped burgers, but I started out as a seasonal fruit picker and farm labourer, which is at about the same level. I have over time also worked as an assistant office admin, in sales, truck driving, machinery operation, construction and in various manufacturing roles. Whatever it took, whatever I could get. For the operators licences that I have, I got them on my own time, they were not part of employer provided training. The point is that independence is something you obtain for yourself. You have to take it, it isn't really given to you.
I've had times when I've literally had to do things like punch a new hole in my belt due to losing weight from not having enough food. Only short term thankfully. I've had jobs with crappy wages and conditions, I've gone into business myself and had if fold and be back in employment again. It isn't easy. But if you let someone dictate the time you start work, the time you eat lunch, the time you finish work, the place you work and how much money you get paid, you're only kidding yourself if you think you're free. Adding protection against being fired is like requiring an additional lock on the inside of your cage.
The communists were right about one thing: you need to own the means of production. They were wrong about how to go about that and nearly everything else. For a burger flipper or similar level employee, here is what I would say as some steps towards independence:
1 - Read. It was illegal to teach slaves to read for a reason and that reason is that it is easier to become free if you are knowledgeable. If you can't afford books, use the library, the internet, buy second hand. Educate yourself in practical skills to provide things for yourself that you either can't get or have to pay someone else too much for now. Educate yourself in the liberal arts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts as much as you can, especially "grammar, rhetoric and logic" ie: how to think and communicate ideas. (Howto: read classic literature, join toastmasters, for logic try starting with Lewis Carrol's "The Game of Logic", cheap on amazon, cheaper at the project gutenberg). Learn about negotiating, sales and marketing. Learn to understand the ways you are being manipulated so you can counteract that. Learn how to negotiate for a job, wage rise and to promote your own products/services when you are ready.
2 - Buy tools.
Step one makes you capable of production (among other things) step two gives you the means of production. You are at this stage beginning to operate as a capitalist ie: you are acquiring possessions that enable you to increase benefit to yourself. Go for it. I've been going down this path for several years. I haven't attained the full measure of freedom I'm aiming for yet, I'm employed at the moment, but I am at the stage where my employers power holds no fear for me. I'm there because it suits my purpose, not because I'm trapped. Just yesterday, after I posted in this thread, we were temporarily stood down because we've been producing faster than we've been selling. It's not because of politics but still some people are quite distressed. Me, I'll work anyway, get some of my accumulated holidays paid out and put the money into investment. A few years ago I would have suffered loss with the rest of them. Among the wage earners, there are two millionaires at our site that I know of. They both got that way by what they did outside, not by just saving wages. Sure becoming a millionaire isn't likely for most, but they could back themselves up with enough savings/earning capacity to not fear a boss, even if losing a job would be inconvenient.
situation 2: Employer pays for legislation to fuck me over. I don't push for legislation in my favor as well. net result: Both have a harder time.
I presume you did a copy and paste and that "don't" is meant to be a "do".
So you can be content with the harder time you have as long as you can make someone else have a hard time too. Let me know how that system works out.
all men are not created equal, some are born into poverty where the only real option if they want to eat is to get a job at walmart while others are born into money where they can get a good education, learn how to run a company
I don't believe that people are in general incapable of running a business. All the skills and mindset can be learnt if you wish to seek the knowledge. I do believe that most people are effectively brainwashed to live dependant lives. It is difficult to overcome, but it is worth the effort to get out of the cage.
You believe that people are incapable and want the government to help them, increasing the size and power of the government at the expense of those people, all in the name of protecting their freedom and rights. I believe that they are capable of exercising their own freedom and rights. I find you view inherently insulting towards people and mine respectful, yet I know that most people will choose your view over mine. I don't understand why, and suspect that I don't want to either. I find it sad that people will sell themselves so cheaply.
Problem is: You can't really easily stop the first [corporations] from growing without hurting someones rights.
No limited liability (limitations on liability for your actions is not a right), no right to lobby government (individuals who are in corporations may, but only personal funding, any corporate funding resulting in mandatory disbanding and confiscation of assets for the company). Done.
When your company employs 10 people and doesn't own the local congressman it's no big problem for you to be able to fire your employees for holding political beliefs and operate a don't ask don't tell policy. On the other hand things look different if you're a large company which is the only significant employer in a region,
The problems caused by the existence of large corporations with persons rights (but not responsibilities) won't be solved by regulating the behaviour of corporations, but their existence. Another reply I made in this thread gives a bit more of my view on this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=605137&cid=24096783
Keep in mind. Some things don't scale well.
Indeed, corporations and governments being two of them. More regulation won't help while you have a docile subservient population who believe they need one for their sustenance and the other for protection against the first, establishing the power of both at the expense of that population.
if you're political convictions are not worth X on what basis do you claim that they are worth listening to? Replace X with a fun range of things like "homelessness","your childrens wellbeing","your childrens education","starvation","a beating","your life" etc and you get a better idea of where that line leads.
"That line" doesn't lead there at all. Nobody has the responsibility to give you a job, a home, attend to your children's well being, education or your food supply. The requirement not to beat you or kill you is already covered by laws against assault and murder. If someone is homeless, jobless etc they have no legal recourse against me. I didn't do anything to them to make them incapable of self employment, let them make their own arrangements.
Like getting my elected officials to make sure my employeer doesn't use the massive ammount of power he has to fuck with my rights?
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness and continued employment with the employer of their choice (regardless of the employers wishes)?"
An employer who fires you is not doing anything to your rights, he is exercising his. Employment usually happens on the employer's property, paid for with the employer's money. What makes you think it is your right to enter his property and receive wages from his money unless it is by contract with him entered in to and continued willingly by both of you?
Companies lobby for enough laws aimed at fucking over my rights, why shouldn't I use my vote for to do the same to them?
Because then both you and your employer have lost your rights to the government.
As a disclaimer: I'm not an employer, just someone who has come to believe that the conditions of employment are not the problem, but the condition of being employed. I'd much rather lobby to have conditions more conducive to profitable self employment than to better conditions of employment. I am in general anti-employment, as a part of that I'm also anti corporations person-like rights. Any legal framework that entices people to give up their freedom for a paycheck is a net negative. I am of the opinion that wanting better employment is like wanting a cushion in your cage. The thing to be angry about is not that your cage isn't good enough, but that you are in a cage.
With the reasonable comes the unreasonable, while you'd want to restrict your employees from advocating killing you the next guy wants to prevent his employees from supporting the party he doesn't vote for.
1) We have secret ballots.
2) If your political convictions are not worth a job, on what basis do you claim that they are worth listening to?
It has always been understood that financial dependence compromises you. The basic nature of employment is subservience. Check out Lawrence Lessig's video "Corruption - The Alpha Version". About 20 minutes in he starts talking about independence. The solution in my view is not to attempt to change the nature of employment, which won't work. If you let an employer be your sole source of income, you are dependent on them, and you are going to feel that bite you at some time (unless you've become so used to it that you don't notice).
My advice: if you need a job right now, start contracting or something in your own time, or at least save enough for a time of unemployment and have your resume and contacts up to date. If you aren't prepared to walk out of that job, you are dependent and you'd better understand that. You can either accept that as a permanent state, or you can do something about it, but crying foul or trying to get laws to protect you job isn't the thing to do. I've worked in jobs where they can't fire someone they want to get rid of, and you'd be better off leaving.
So would you also be against anonymous speach since it could enable someone in your employment who holds such views to keep you in the dark while spreading their views?
Doesn't really work to put words in someone's mouth. The whole legal system is based on "if we find out", yet most people still believe in the necessity of things like "probable cause" even if they agree with the laws in place.
If you're not paying someone 168 hours a week then what possible right do you have to say what they can and can't do in their time provided it's legal.
I didn't say they couldn't say it, didn't say it shouldn't be protected speech politically, just that they should not expect any benefit from me, including continued employment. If they are advocating things that are contrary to my interests I don't see any reason I should be compelled to do business with them, whether as an employee, supplier, customer or in any other way. If I think the benefits of doing business with them outweigh the costs, then that should be my decision, not the governments.
And I am suggesting that political speech protections should be extended to prevent retribution from employers.
I disagree. I have seen here on /. people advocate the view that it is justifiable to kill the owners of property in order to acquire it on the basis of "property is my birthright as a human being". It was expressed as part of a (communist) political view. Protected speech politically, but definitely grounds for instant dismissal from employment. Anyone who advocates in the political area the taking of my life or property ought have no expectation of any benefit from me, through employment or otherwise.
You just forgot to mention that they either have licenses (per-seat, for example), are hardware manufacturers (ergo, the software is just a commodity)
So they use a different business model than proprietary software vendors. That would seem fairly obvious by now, hardly something that needs to be brought up in every post on the subject in order to "keep it honest"
or dual-license (and therefore, are fucking hypocrites/wiseguys).
MS prefers that if you use software for free (argh! software for all, me hearties!) that you use theirs rather than their competitions so you will be accustomed to it and buy from them when you want to purchase software. People who dual license with open source make this legal for their customers instead of holding a threat against them. Oh the hypocracy! What sleazy wiseguys, providing software in a way that people want!
There is a LOT of BSD-style licensed code and libraries used within successful commercial code.
Binary only releases by companies do not qualify as open source. BSD releases by non-commercial organisations do not qualify as commercial. The fact that some closed commercial software has code that originated in a non-commercial open source release is not relevant to the GP's point. It is not commercial open source.
Ever hear the expression "Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes"?
Yes, that way if he gets angry with you he's a mile away, and barefoot.
My other point still stands. Timothy McVeigh, the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombings, drove up to a federal building in a state with very liberal gun laws, parked his truck laden with explosives, and walked away. No one tried to stop him when he either approached the building in his truck or walked away afterwards.
Yes. If my point had been that all terrorists would be unsuccessful due to being killed by armed civilians, or that armed civilians are the only thing necessary to defend against terrorism, that would have been a really good counterpoint.
That was kind of my point.
I realized that part way through making the post but thought it was still worth clarifying. It isn't just demoralization though, there is quality of kills vs quantity (disrupt command structure), disruption to supply lines (.50 BMG round in engine block of supply trucks for example) destruction of other equipment.
Of course, the average citizen doesn't have the skills of a sniper, but 40 million people willing to take 1-2 shots then disappear would be exceedingly difficult to defeat. Especially by sending their sons/brothers against them.
Well, I didn't see anyone pull a gun on the 9/11 hijackers, did you?
Guns are banned on planes, yes? Nevertheless, hijackings were expected to end in the release of most or all of the passengers. This is no longer the expectation and peoples responses would be different now. Guns being banned on planes would negate any difference between the US and Oz attributable to gun laws obviously.
To think that terrorists would be more likely to get shot in the US is a laughable idea
1) "More likely" doesn't necessarily mean it is very likely. In a situation where a terrorist was able to be shot, it could happen in the US but not here in Oz where only police and security guards can carry except for very narrowly defined activities.
2) Kidnappings are sometimes carried out by terrorists and would be an example of an activity that would expose the terrorist to the danger of being shot, in the US. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2007/facts_and_figures_2007.pdf Kidnapping rose from 478 in 1996 (couple of years after our gun laws) to 725 in 2006. In addition, not every terrorist plans and executes their task well and discreetly, Richard Reid for example. Someone who bungled like that on US soil could certainly be shot and would have a higher chance of success in Australia or other place where the population is disarmed, like the UK.
In addition, it appears, among other things, that personal gun ownership part of the control of terrorism in Israel.