Isn't this basically the same as saying people don't like change, which anyone with life experience would already know?
I wish they wouldn't change the way they say it, it makes me scared and confused.
Its not change that worries people, its change that takes them from their comfort zone. People wouldn't have much of an issue with cheaper flights, faster travel - but suggest that some trips can be replaced by videoconferencing..
Makes sense that there is some animosity to creativity.
Being conservative, doing the same thing that worked for your ancestors, is generally a good way to survive. Thus evolution would select for people who tend to be conservative and stick with the tried and true.
On the other hand, the guy who makes a pointy stick and sticks said stick in the side of an animal in attempt to kill and eat it providing more food for his family is being creative but if he picks the wrong animal he ends up rather dead. If he wins then he stands a chance of becoming the new tried and true, the new way. But until he proves it the majority of his peers are wise to be a bit hesitant to follow his lead. If he shows a good history of creative successes then adaptable individuals will follow him because that is a good survival strategy.
I think you have highlighted the main issue "creative solution = risk", as well as " "creative solution = potential benefit". Where costs and/or risks are high people need to evaluate this rigorously. For example, a novel idea in dealing with nuclear waste might be brilliant, but nobody would want to use it without a rigorous trial (risk and cost is high), but an idea that crisps and tomato ketchup would make a great sandwich filling can just be tried (risk and cost low).
I can see a potential issue that people who are best suited to performing rigorous proofs of concept and trials are generally not going to be the creative type. This may mean there is a bias not to take the situation seriously (why are we wasting time testing this when we already have something that works reasonably well).
Its job is to continue the fine tradition of violating other nuclear powers' airspace on a daily basis.
If the Muzzies get the bomb it will be a necessity. This could happen - the Pakistani government could just continue its present path and become a sharia state, or Iran could develop a bomb
Isn't this exactly what marketing research companies have done before. A quick web search says:
corn is a powerful consumer classification that segments the UK population. By analysing demographic data, social factors, population and consumer behaviour, it provides precise information and an understanding of different types of people. Acorn provides valuable consumer insight helping you target, acquire and develop profitable customer relationships and improve service delivery.
This is just another case of adding "... on a computer" or "... over wifi" to something that's already an established practice to gain a patent.
There is a basic problem with your recommendation.
If your software is designed to accept "independent loadable components", then each component could have a legally bounded identity that can be separated as not being part of your software (also you need to choose the right type of license).
I am not totally sure what you mean by this, but I think you mean someone could submit or utilize a reusable module from another product. If so I don't see how that effects legality any more than a contribution to a web site. Someone could post an illegal poem (e.g inciting racial hatred) that could also be part of an anthology, maybe legally published in a different country. The site owner still has to remove it when notified.
If the contribution becomes part of your software "genes", then it is extremely difficult to proof that the resulting product is not infringing any type of legal definition. How can you say the line 300 and 450 is not our responsibility?
I think this is a genuine issue, but not in the way you describe. If there is a single line or module (like decrypt RTMPE in the example) this can obviously be removed, and other streams left in tact. There could be a project where the whole purpose of the software becomes the illegal activity - it is listed as an RTMPE downlaod utility, other options become unsupported etc. If this happens then it does become difficult to say "we are not responsible". I see this as the same as when a web-site becomes a hate site or pirate site. In most cases it will be clear cut - but there are bound to be some difficult ones
Obviously this is a combined problem : "design" and "code management". Maybe when we define these types of things on new projects, we need to think in possible future legal issues and work according with that reality.
I would hate to have to have things designed so that they couldn't be used illegally. we don't go to that extreme outside software though so it shouldn't really apply here. Why do I not trust the legislators though?
Right. Because No Such Agency would never be able to find a way to read data encrypted by an open source program. Why, that's a magical band-aid for everything!
It makes things more difficult for them. Instead of having a neat backdoor they either have to insert obfuscated code, which could be detected or replaced at any time or convince people to use weak algorithms. Being open source people can select any algorithm they want - AES, Twofish, Serpent, Elyptic Curve, or rot13. The chances are that not all of them will be compromised. (if they all are then open or closed source doesn't matter - you're screwed either way)
contributions to open source products should be just like posts to websites. If someone posts something illegal then the authorities should issue a "take down" notice to the project. If they remove it then only the original poster should be liable.
Nelson Mandela was one of my heroes. His "truth and reconciliation" was the only way to heal South Africa after apartheid, and puts lie to the claims that "people who are mistreated have no choice but to become murderers" that we hear so often.
Without copyright the gpl is bsd, open source harmony.
Without copyright there would be no need for anything different from BSD. In effect (software patents aside) everything would either be freely usable or secret!
I actually believe that all sets of cabling should be treated the same. I object to bigots telling me that I shouldn't stick a USB connector into an SAE AS 50151 B 500 amp connector.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you're distro maintainers are too fucking lazy, or politically against supporting anything from Canonical.
Or quite happy with the Gnome solution.
... oooshhh
If they allow a victory Mosque at ground zero why not this
confidant
I'm fairly confidant thanks
Especially the part of discounting or ridiculing creative ideas.
Cue "They all laughed at Christopher Columbus..."
Isn't this basically the same as saying people don't like change, which anyone with life experience would already know?
I wish they wouldn't change the way they say it, it makes me scared and confused.
Its not change that worries people, its change that takes them from their comfort zone. People wouldn't have much of an issue with cheaper flights, faster travel - but suggest that some trips can be replaced by videoconferencing..
with so many bad ideas; some trying to do bad things.
But fortunately islam discourages individual or creative thinking
Makes sense that there is some animosity to creativity.
Being conservative, doing the same thing that worked for your ancestors, is generally a good way to survive. Thus evolution would select for people who tend to be conservative and stick with the tried and true.
On the other hand, the guy who makes a pointy stick and sticks said stick in the side of an animal in attempt to kill and eat it providing more food for his family is being creative but if he picks the wrong animal he ends up rather dead. If he wins then he stands a chance of becoming the new tried and true, the new way. But until he proves it the majority of his peers are wise to be a bit hesitant to follow his lead. If he shows a good history of creative successes then adaptable individuals will follow him because that is a good survival strategy.
I think you have highlighted the main issue "creative solution = risk", as well as " "creative solution = potential benefit". Where costs and/or risks are high people need to evaluate this rigorously. For example, a novel idea in dealing with nuclear waste might be brilliant, but nobody would want to use it without a rigorous trial (risk and cost is high), but an idea that crisps and tomato ketchup would make a great sandwich filling can just be tried (risk and cost low).
I can see a potential issue that people who are best suited to performing rigorous proofs of concept and trials are generally not going to be the creative type. This may mean there is a bias not to take the situation seriously (why are we wasting time testing this when we already have something that works reasonably well).
...and you don't see them getting any military contracts.
I'm afraid your problem is the treaty against chemical and biological warfare.
Its job is to continue the fine tradition of violating other nuclear powers' airspace on a daily basis.
If the Muzzies get the bomb it will be a necessity. This could happen - the Pakistani government could just continue its present path and become a sharia state, or Iran could develop a bomb
corn is a powerful consumer classification that segments the UK population. By analysing demographic data, social factors, population and consumer behaviour, it provides precise information and an understanding of different types of people. Acorn provides valuable consumer insight helping you target, acquire and develop profitable customer relationships and improve service delivery.
This is just another case of adding "... on a computer" or "... over wifi" to something that's already an established practice to gain a patent.
There is a basic problem with your recommendation. If your software is designed to accept "independent loadable components", then each component could have a legally bounded identity that can be separated as not being part of your software (also you need to choose the right type of license).
I am not totally sure what you mean by this, but I think you mean someone could submit or utilize a reusable module from another product. If so I don't see how that effects legality any more than a contribution to a web site. Someone could post an illegal poem (e.g inciting racial hatred) that could also be part of an anthology, maybe legally published in a different country. The site owner still has to remove it when notified.
If the contribution becomes part of your software "genes", then it is extremely difficult to proof that the resulting product is not infringing any type of legal definition. How can you say the line 300 and 450 is not our responsibility?
I think this is a genuine issue, but not in the way you describe. If there is a single line or module (like decrypt RTMPE in the example) this can obviously be removed, and other streams left in tact. There could be a project where the whole purpose of the software becomes the illegal activity - it is listed as an RTMPE downlaod utility, other options become unsupported etc. If this happens then it does become difficult to say "we are not responsible". I see this as the same as when a web-site becomes a hate site or pirate site. In most cases it will be clear cut - but there are bound to be some difficult ones
Obviously this is a combined problem : "design" and "code management". Maybe when we define these types of things on new projects, we need to think in possible future legal issues and work according with that reality.
I would hate to have to have things designed so that they couldn't be used illegally. we don't go to that extreme outside software though so it shouldn't really apply here. Why do I not trust the legislators though?
Right. Because No Such Agency would never be able to find a way to read data encrypted by an open source program. Why, that's a magical band-aid for everything!
It makes things more difficult for them. Instead of having a neat backdoor they either have to insert obfuscated code, which could be detected or replaced at any time or convince people to use weak algorithms. Being open source people can select any algorithm they want - AES, Twofish, Serpent, Elyptic Curve, or rot13. The chances are that not all of them will be compromised. (if they all are then open or closed source doesn't matter - you're screwed either way)
Who cares if the software is non-free? That's not even the issue.
You are correct, the issue is that it must be open source and build-able from source.
That chick that appeared on Playboy said so!
Playboy, you say? I'd let her vaccinate me
As a nerd I assume that "Playboy" is some playbook-gameboy hybrid?
contributions to open source products should be just like posts to websites. If someone posts something illegal then the authorities should issue a "take down" notice to the project. If they remove it then only the original poster should be liable.
Nelson Mandela was one of my heroes. His "truth and reconciliation" was the only way to heal South Africa after apartheid, and puts lie to the claims that "people who are mistreated have no choice but to become murderers" that we hear so often.
that it didn't end up in Muslim hands ... they would have been sure to use it against the USA
Without copyright the gpl is bsd, open source harmony.
Without copyright there would be no need for anything different from BSD. In effect (software patents aside) everything would either be freely usable or secret!
...and report the bullets as stolen.
better pump a load in ... you need quite a few used bullets to be worth $5.
Yes, really.
This excludes the hundreds of thousands killed in Pakistan, Syria, etc. In Syria there were 15,000 Jews in 1948. Now there are 50. Muslim population has decreased from 20-15% to 1.5% in the last 60 years in Pakistan whereas it increased from 8% to 15% during the same period in India. The so called "terrorist attacks" are just the tip of the iceberg
Oh and by the way to prove your point you need to show that there were nearly as many Zombie attacks!
That's alright, it will be the year of the Linux dead desktop instead.
Linux dead desktop, AKA Unity
That's immoral
Only if you are a religious bigot.
I actually believe that all sets of cabling should be treated the same. I object to bigots telling me that I shouldn't stick a USB connector into an SAE AS 50151 B 500 amp connector.
and just after The EU mandates micro-USB as a common phone charger
That's immoral