Way to weasel out of a losing argument. The *parent had said "It's only a cost if you think of your time as a monetized commodity. Which we in the US have been trained to due by thinking of hourly wages and billable time", and that was what was talked about. Your limited imagination could only hold the idea that everybody's time is a monetized commodity. I showed you that it isn't. End of argumetn for me.
You switched the topic. You specifically talked about jobs that do "not involve trading time spent working for money". Subsistence farmers do not have "jobs", and they do not work to earn money
Thanks for pointing that out, I'm tired of it:) Someone once wrote on/. "information wants to be free in the same manner as water wants to leak", which IMHO sums it up pretty nicely without having to repeat the long rant over and over again.
If I hadn't seen your UID I'd thought I am back to the arguing for arguing's sake of school age.
Having kids really should be restricted
No it shouldn't. Living organisms have a (pretty?) neutral CO2 cycle over their "lifetime". That's the point: we are now releasing CO2 of dead organisms, which was trapped so far. And we do it very fast. Even ignoring that, if you thought that in a typical family of 1 - 2 adults, 1 - 2 kids, and 1 - 2 cars, the kids release as much CO2 into the air as the cars, you are an idiot.
Since you can't prove carbon dioxide to be safe, should you be made to stop producing it?
You should stop producing it in numbers if you don't understand the results - and we don't, however you stand on the global warming issue.
And do we check every single gas emitted by every single process that produces any kind of gas?
We already check a lot, or at least I hope for you that your community does. We prescribe lots of emission levels for cars and other industrial processes, and check them regularly.
Shall there be flying gas monitors that detect gas emissions of everything that produces anything
We check the air in cities continuosly and if the toxic values are too high, we issue driving restrictions.
issuing citations for those who are not licensesd to produce a particular gas?
If you run a factory your emissions will be checked regularly and if you don't comply you can get shut down. (Or not)
And what about combinations of gasses which aren't realy harmful alone, but combine to create things like acid rain?
Sulfur has been banned from gasoline and diesel for exactly this reason years ago.
In the MS FAQ you linked to, I can't see the relevant information anywhere. It only talks about the ECMA process and the CNS. In particular, there is no link to the actual license. Here neither. A search for XML AND License seems to yield this as the best hit, but, on the actual page, the word "license" does not occur. They don't seem to make it overly easy to actually read the stupid thing. Care to point me to an up-to-date copy? Thanks.
Lacking a copy, I can't validate RMS's statement in my original link that
"it covers only code that implements, precisely, the Microsoft formats, which means that a program under this license does not permit modification"
If this is true, not requiring attribution doesn't really solve it.
Unless your software is Free. And you are talking about the Office 2007 formats, due to be out in 6 - 12 months. How does this help me today? (The XML file formats in O2003 have a different license and are also useless because a tiny minority of even O2003 users use them)
If you don't live in a country where it is legal to use patented/whatever codecs without paying royalties, you can of course still do it at your own risk, which is exactly what you did by doing it in Gentoo, so I fail to see the problem.
FWIW, Debian does include mp3 decoder software (i.e., software that can decode mp3 files to listen to) by default. It takes ca. 5 seconds to know this by googling for debian AND mp3 AND patent AND policy, which brings up this thread as the first link. This might be too much for a newbie, but you don't qualify because you installed Gentoo. OTOH, a newbie wouldn't even have to google for it, because it works out of the box.
If you mean mp3 encoders (software to produce mp3 files), you are right that they aren't included. It takes 0.29 secs (according to Google) to look for debian AND mp3 AND encoder, which will give you lots of info and debs to download.
I still don't see how you can add MP3 support to KDE when the support has to be compiled into the KDE apps that use it
The wonders of modern software engineering! Did you ever recompile Windows Media Player because you added codecs for ogg, DivX and the 1,000,000 other file formats it can't play out of the box? Thought so. See, while support might have to be compiled in, to my knowledge all Debian packages do and will gracefully ignore it if the mp3 library is not present. This is true for all proprietary codecs that I am aware of.
If you google for Debian AND codecs or Debian AND "unofficial repository" or Debian AND decss, or whatever, you will see many hits to repositories that you can simply add to/etc/apt/sources list (you can also use, e.g., the newbie-friendly Synaptic). Usually the google hits will include the repository of Christian Marillat or, for Ubuntu, of the Penguin Liberation Front, who provide packages for users who do not live in legally challenged countries. Then just install what you need with Synaptic or apt-get.
If you live in such a country, you can still run a Debian-based distro, Linspire, which will give you mp3 and video codecs as well as a DVD player, all completely legal even in the US, for a small fee. (There is talk about providing Linspire's Click 'n' Run Warehouse for Ubuntu users too). (Don't believe the myth that Linspire runs everything as root, it is not true). Anyway, Xandros gives you nearly the same (sans CSS'ed DVD IIRC)
It was a royal PITA, I can tell you, especially because Debian is a binary distribution, so you can't just add MP3 support.
What are you talking about? You just have to add one well-advertised repository to apt, and can install whatever multimedia stuff you want, be it mp3 en/decoders, decss, win32 libraries, etc. (You should live in a country where this is legal to do this.)
The "restricing activities" thing IMHO really doesn't lead anywhere in this case, as it posses the question who is to decide who restricts what. E.g., those who insist on unnecessarily emitting CO2 possibly will restrict my and my (not-yet existing) children's ability to continue living our lives.
In what you present as the US model (and I very much doubt that it indeed works the way you say, but then I don't live there), I could invent a new chemical and immediately start to release it into the air, until people die and it can be proven that it is my chemical's fault?
Sorry, but IMHO that is an extremely stupid way to deal with this problem. Before I start to release stuff into the air that wasn't there in the first place, I should be required to prove that it's safe.
If you are going to propose a hypothesis that CO2 emissions are harmful, you have the burden of proof, not the other way around.
Why? Because humans burning fossile fuels in great numbers is the natural state of affairs on earth, and the risk from any deviation from it should be thouroughly assessed before starting?
Reality check: serious CO2 emissions by humans have started 150 years ago. Your sentence should be turned around: "If you are going to propose a hypothesis that CO2 emissions are harmless, you have the burden of proof, not the other way round".
It has been repeatedly stated by people who used it (e.g., Edge magazine), that you can just as well use tiny movements, holding it in your lap, as big ones.
the GPL really is just a template and that you can add or subtract clauses as you like
This would be an incredibly stupid practice since it would create an inpenetrabel jungle of licenses. There are so many FOSS licenses already that it's hard to imagine that someone needs something that hasn't been done before or can't be done by licensing under more than one license simultaneously. Fortunately nearly noone actually does this.
Many software packages do this, yielding licenses that are GPL compatible but either allow more permissive use or restrict certain uses
They surely can not create licenses that are "GPL compatible but... restrict certain uses" that way. From GPL, Terms and Conditions, point 6,
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Therefore combining code under GPL and code under GPL-derived but more restrictive licenses would violate the GPL.
Beagle maturity, XGL coolness and Eclipse for power users
I love Dapper as much as you, but:
* Beagle is in universe, and thus not supported by Ubuntu * On my box, depending on current update status (some days it works), Beagle makes mono use 100%
* Xgl is in universe, too * While nice, Xgl has a whole lot of issues. Have you tried connecting a second display? * The technology is not mature yet at all, and it seems RH's AIGLX project has a good chance of being the winner (since it's championed by Xorg and Nvidia)
Thanks for that. I would have sworn that when I heard of them last year or so for the first time, they were pointing out their 2D-onlyness frequently. Good to hear.
Slashdot Mirror
lewd exhibition of (...) post-pubescent female breast
Any word about pre-pubescent female breast? Can any idiot get at job at the government defining stuff?
Great definition of "harmful" then ;) It is harmful because it is unhealthy and unwholesome. That really helps!
the last fifty years
:)
You underestimate
Way to weasel out of a losing argument. The *parent had said "It's only a cost if you think of your time as a monetized commodity. Which we in the US have been trained to due by thinking of hourly wages and billable time", and that was what was talked about. Your limited imagination could only hold the idea that everybody's time is a monetized commodity. I showed you that it isn't. End of argumetn for me.
You switched the topic. You specifically talked about jobs that do "not involve trading time spent working for money". Subsistence farmers do not have "jobs", and they do not work to earn money
apt-get install alacarte
Um, subsistence farmers in many parts of the world, as one example?
I'm not the parent, but I guess he meant /.'s main resident libertarian, dada21, who was the OP and said something along the lines.
Commodore 64. TV.
Agreed about the CLI, but in the GUI use Netmeeting or VNC for heaven's sake!
I attempted to install GNUStep in Debian Sid.
Um, Sid is called "unstable" exactly for the reason that its packages are in flux and dependency issues might occur. Try the stable version.
Thanks for pointing that out, I'm tired of it :) Someone once wrote on /. "information wants to be free in the same manner as water wants to leak", which IMHO sums it up pretty nicely without having to repeat the long rant over and over again.
If I hadn't seen your UID I'd thought I am back to the arguing for arguing's sake of school age.
Having kids really should be restricted
No it shouldn't. Living organisms have a (pretty?) neutral CO2 cycle over their "lifetime". That's the point: we are now releasing CO2 of dead organisms, which was trapped so far. And we do it very fast. Even ignoring that, if you thought that in a typical family of 1 - 2 adults, 1 - 2 kids, and 1 - 2 cars, the kids release as much CO2 into the air as the cars, you are an idiot.
Since you can't prove carbon dioxide to be safe, should you be made to stop producing it?
You should stop producing it in numbers if you don't understand the results - and we don't, however you stand on the global warming issue.
And do we check every single gas emitted by every single process that produces any kind of gas?
We already check a lot, or at least I hope for you that your community does. We prescribe lots of emission levels for cars and other industrial processes, and check them regularly.
Shall there be flying gas monitors that detect gas emissions of everything that produces anything
We check the air in cities continuosly and if the toxic values are too high, we issue driving restrictions.
issuing citations for those who are not licensesd to produce a particular gas?
If you run a factory your emissions will be checked regularly and if you don't comply you can get shut down. (Or not)
And what about combinations of gasses which aren't realy harmful alone, but combine to create things like acid rain?
Sulfur has been banned from gasoline and diesel for exactly this reason years ago.
I'm still here, and he's not. I've been here eight years.
Yeah, he's been lying in the sun all these years. Seriously, what did they pay him for being fired?
Lacking a copy, I can't validate RMS's statement in my original link that If this is true, not requiring attribution doesn't really solve it.
Unless your software is Free. And you are talking about the Office 2007 formats, due to be out in 6 - 12 months. How does this help me today? (The XML file formats in O2003 have a different license and are also useless because a tiny minority of even O2003 users use them)
If you don't live in a country where it is legal to use patented/whatever codecs without paying royalties, you can of course still do it at your own risk, which is exactly what you did by doing it in Gentoo, so I fail to see the problem.
/etc/apt/sources list (you can also use, e.g., the newbie-friendly Synaptic). Usually the google hits will include the repository of Christian Marillat or, for Ubuntu, of the Penguin Liberation Front, who provide packages for users who do not live in legally challenged countries. Then just install what you need with Synaptic or apt-get.
FWIW, Debian does include mp3 decoder software (i.e., software that can decode mp3 files to listen to) by default. It takes ca. 5 seconds to know this by googling for debian AND mp3 AND patent AND policy, which brings up this thread as the first link.
This might be too much for a newbie, but you don't qualify because you installed Gentoo. OTOH, a newbie wouldn't even have to google for it, because it works out of the box.
If you mean mp3 encoders (software to produce mp3 files), you are right that they aren't included. It takes 0.29 secs (according to Google) to look for debian AND mp3 AND encoder, which will give you lots of info and debs to download.
I still don't see how you can add MP3 support to KDE when the support has to be compiled into the KDE apps that use it
The wonders of modern software engineering! Did you ever recompile Windows Media Player because you added codecs for ogg, DivX and the 1,000,000 other file formats it can't play out of the box? Thought so.
See, while support might have to be compiled in, to my knowledge all Debian packages do and will gracefully ignore it if the mp3 library is not present. This is true for all proprietary codecs that I am aware of.
If you google for Debian AND codecs or Debian AND "unofficial repository" or Debian AND decss, or whatever, you will see many hits to repositories that you can simply add to
If you live in such a country, you can still run a Debian-based distro, Linspire, which will give you mp3 and video codecs as well as a DVD player, all completely legal even in the US, for a small fee. (There is talk about providing Linspire's Click 'n' Run Warehouse for Ubuntu users too). (Don't believe the myth that Linspire runs everything as root, it is not true). Anyway, Xandros gives you nearly the same (sans CSS'ed DVD IIRC)
It was a royal PITA, I can tell you, especially because Debian is a binary distribution, so you can't just add MP3 support.
What are you talking about? You just have to add one well-advertised repository to apt, and can install whatever multimedia stuff you want, be it mp3 en/decoders, decss, win32 libraries, etc. (You should live in a country where this is legal to do this.)
The "restricing activities" thing IMHO really doesn't lead anywhere in this case, as it posses the question who is to decide who restricts what. E.g., those who insist on unnecessarily emitting CO2 possibly will restrict my and my (not-yet existing) children's ability to continue living our lives.
In what you present as the US model (and I very much doubt that it indeed works the way you say, but then I don't live there), I could invent a new chemical and immediately start to release it into the air, until people die and it can be proven that it is my chemical's fault?
Sorry, but IMHO that is an extremely stupid way to deal with this problem. Before I start to release stuff into the air that wasn't there in the first place, I should be required to prove that it's safe.
Those who want to release stuff into the atmosphere should have to prove that it's harmless. If you don't get that, I can't help you.
If you are going to propose a hypothesis that CO2 emissions are harmful, you have the burden of proof, not the other way around.
Why? Because humans burning fossile fuels in great numbers is the natural state of affairs on earth, and the risk from any deviation from it should be thouroughly assessed before starting?
Reality check: serious CO2 emissions by humans have started 150 years ago. Your sentence should be turned around: "If you are going to propose a hypothesis that CO2 emissions are harmless, you have the burden of proof, not the other way round".
It has been repeatedly stated by people who used it (e.g., Edge magazine), that you can just as well use tiny movements, holding it in your lap, as big ones.
This would be an incredibly stupid practice since it would create an inpenetrabel jungle of licenses. There are so many FOSS licenses already that it's hard to imagine that someone needs something that hasn't been done before or can't be done by licensing under more than one license simultaneously. Fortunately nearly noone actually does this.
Many software packages do this, yielding licenses that are GPL compatible but either allow more permissive use or restrict certain uses
They surely can not create licenses that are "GPL compatible but
Beagle maturity, XGL coolness and Eclipse for power users
I love Dapper as much as you, but:
* Beagle is in universe, and thus not supported by Ubuntu
* On my box, depending on current update status (some days it works), Beagle makes mono use 100%
* Xgl is in universe, too
* While nice, Xgl has a whole lot of issues. Have you tried connecting a second display?
* The technology is not mature yet at all, and it seems RH's AIGLX project has a good chance of being the winner (since it's championed by Xorg and Nvidia)
* Eclipse also is in universe
Thanks for that. I would have sworn that when I heard of them last year or so for the first time, they were pointing out their 2D-onlyness frequently. Good to hear.