You realize that the computing requirements do change, do increase over time?
One of the things big iron provides is a clear update cycle without sacrificing those 9s, as well. You don't have to worry about whether or not the latest batch of Dell machines is going to have bad capacitors that will incur 10% more expenses. No, you pay for all of the potential costs up front, at once, for high reliability.
For a lot of big businesses this makes a lot of sense to them. It's reliable, it doesn't depend on network technicians and system administrators and properly inspected requisitions for new equipment. It doesn't require a lot of the overhead that in-house departments would have to take on. Instead, they give you a big ol' box and a number to call if you manage to break it.
Unfortunately the cell phone providers are providing what is by many considered an essential service, it is at least in the business world. This means they are negotiating from a position of power. Furthermore, there really is no negotiation. You never get to determine terms, you merely accept one of a few choices of contract and all that it entails. No negotiation and an unfair position for the two parties make, from what I understand (IANAL,) a weak contractual foundation.
"... I can encourage installing Emacs, GCC or OpenOffice on Windows, but I should not encourage installing non-free programs on GNU/Linux or BSD, just as I should not encourage installing Windows."
"Providing a recipe to install a non-free program is very direct and clear support for its use. Making your free program work with something non-free if that's already installed is not such a direct message of support."
This is from this very same thread started by me, view the GGP thread to see sources (can't figure out how to put URLs in this AJAXy system and the previews didn't convert <a> a tags.) This is also the reasoning for the existence of gNewSense, because Debian -is- only Free Software. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever he couldn't just say, here's gNewSense, it's Debian renamed and without the non-free repositories.
Instead, he appears to be offended by the fact that they make it easy to install non-free software (gasp, choice) and that Debian uses trademarks to prevent other people from soiling the name.
You're also paying through the nose for every extra nine of uptime.
That's not to say it's impossible, IBM, HP, any of the "big iron" companies can offer you damn near 100% uptime without major changes to your software.
But be prepared to pull out the checkbook. You know, the REALLY BIG one that is only suitable for writing lots of zeroes and grand prize giveaways.
But Stallman has specifically said that even giving people the choice to install non-free software is heinous. In this case, the fact that Debian even has the OPTION of non-free repositories is bad. Not that it's even the default.
Because he truly thinks intellectual property is evil and won't associate himself with a product that encourages it with that form of licensing. The mere fact that you can't call a fork Firefox offends Stallman, or evidently does so.
No, it gives strawmen the incentive to develop free and open source drivers while everyone else is doing it for the heck of it, because they can, or because they want to.
It doesn't give anyone any added incentive but the people who use it. So, unless you plan on coding the GNewSense wireless drivers and ATI/nVidia chipset drivers, you're bringing up a strawman.
Anyway, people are working on ATI/nVidia drivers that are free in the GNU definition anyway, with or without the existence of these 'very free' distributions.
I think the only purpose that distros like GNewSense serve, other than one's own ideology, is to show how far Linux and open source has come (very, very far) and how far Linux and open source has to go (still quite a ways.)
No, profiting from or providing incentive to profit from (that is, purchasing) child pornography should be illegal, as it should be for any illegal, heinous act. You should no more be able to pay someone to steal something and then sell a video of it than you should be able to pay someone to kill someone or rape someone.
This is a matter completely separate from your slippery slope ideas that we should ban them from watching Hostel: no one was harmed in Hostel. Snuff films -can- be made without killing people, "loli" porn -can- be made without children (there are a lot of people who are 18 who don't look it and are totally willing to do porn.) This isn't a slippery slope matter, you shouldn't be able to profit off, nor should you engage in the distribution of video, picture, or other evidence of illegal acts.
As said by other people in this discussion, if someone buys a book from you which happens to contain some steganographic child porn hidden in it, and then that porn is discovered on their computer, they should be punished. We don't know who they payed, how the content was put there. We may never find that evidence. But not making it illegal to have makes it much, much harder to track down people selling it. It is in fact, nearly impossible to determine where digital media is coming from, though it's very, very easy to determine where it's at when someone has it.
I think it's one of the actual obligations of our nation's FBI and other police organizations to attack -every- aspect of a crime. Not just the crime itself, but anyone who intended to gain from it, whether that is public or private. You SHOULD NOT gain from child porn, true snuff films, films of stealing or in any way breaking the law.
Don't respond with 'stay in the church' to an Atheist by the way. I'm not saying ban fictitious works, I'm not saying ban animated works that harm no one, I'm definitely not saying things like Hostel or Saw are obscene and should fall under the same category. I'm talking about profiting from criminal activity, with the intent to cause that activity or encourage the distribution of the evidence. There are certain things that are absolutely for the public good, or clearly fall under first amendment rights. My ability to satirize the Islamic holy text is inviolate here.
Don't overreact, Scientology has strongarmed many large organizations into removing material under threat of copyright infringement, and Google/Youtube would not be the first to follow up on the DMCA requests filed by Scientology. Moreover, unless the people whose videos were petitioned to be removed file counter-DMCA requests, Google cannot "man up" and defend them. If they ignore one DMCA request in the interest of not doing evil, they can become legally responsible for that material. This vastly increases the cost and responsibility of those who follow through on the many, many, many, MANY DMCA requests that go to Youtube. Instead of having someone simply process a file and check a box, they would have to call in a full ethics and legal review on -every- DMCA request.
Simply put: continue to post critical material on YouTube, but DEFEND IT. When they file DMCA notices, counter-claim them!
Nah, there's more than one political theory there. For example, some people in West Virginia have vehemently expressed their belief that Obama is not 'one of them' despite him being a natural born citizen (a prerequisite for being President, so one would hope he is.)
And there are some people, such as myself, who believe that anyone can become an American. Do I consider Arnold Schwarzenegger foreign or un-American or "not one of us" merely because he was born in a different country? No. That's foolish, he came to America with the desire to succeed and accomplish, and though I don't agree with him (not that it matters, I don't live in California) that doesn't make him not 'one of us.'
Child porn downloading needs to be made illegal to increase the cost of making and distributing it. That is, if downloads weren't illegal and the people downloading it weren't afraid of getting caught, their cost/benefit would be different. Making it legal to download but not to make child porn decreases the cost for consumers, which would make it more easily profitable for sellers. And for producers in foreign countries would have more direct, legit distribution. That would encourage more child porn, etc.
As it is, I see no problem with banning something heinous all the way from its act to the distribution of it, so long as the people along the way aren't paying to see said act. Creating child porn should be made as costly, as dangerous, as illegal as possible, and the dissemination of it similarly so. It's not just obscene material, which can be broadcast for the national good (such as terrorist videos, assassinations of world leaders, the WTC attacks,) it's obscene material -created- by people who sought to create obscene material and profit from it. That's the distinction. I would consider true snuff films to be in the same category. This isn't just some journalist sneaking into Burma and taping a protest and the subsequent killing of monks in order to show the world what's happening. That journalist did not cause those events to happen, he is a passive observer informing the world of a tragedy. The people shooting child porn or taking pictures of it... ugh, they are causing horrible things to happen with the intent of distributing them.
Too little, too late. If he gave blanket redistribution permission in the past, that's out in the wild. He can't retroactively change the permission he's given. That is why you or I can't attempt to un-GPL the Linux kernel by submitting vitally important code, waiting a few years until it's necessary to the smooth operation of the kernel, and then saying, nah, I take it back.
What if before they clicked "I Agree" they removed the EULA before it ever appeared? Would it fall under copyright infringement then, or is there some way to get around -that- by instead using a shim code that disables the EULA in some way without ever rewriting anything on the OSX disc?
If I create an extremely vital set of components for Windows that eventually everyone feels like they couldn't live without, but can actually be shipped without Windows, should I require everyone to refer to Windows as AnpheusIsAwesome/Windows?
Far better to slow when being tailgated than risk a crash, which is going to make rush hour tenfold worse for everyone behind them, or to wait until the last possible moment to brake.
In rush hour traffic, the worst thing that can happen is traffic halts entirely at any point. That halting means everyone has to slow down, the gaps between cars shrink to inches, and accelerating out of that will ripple, -slowly- down the road.
If you're being tailgated, not slowing down is a safety risk that can also put traffic at a standstill.
Wow, a URL block fails to catch it if you change the URL's domain name? What happens if you change the TLD? Jesus christ, someone alert... the someone in charge of this madness! It must be stopped!
It's a lie by omission. It bolsters his argument by making a true claim, that nuclear power sources can't be carbon neutral if the construction and transportation involved uses oil sources, without advertising the fact that the same thing applies to every other power source.
Over its lifetime, however, nuclear power is far, far closer to carbon neutral than any current oil or coal source. And ideally if we can get an electric car infrastructure working, we can make the construction of a nuclear power plant carbon neutral.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize that the computing requirements do change, do increase over time?
One of the things big iron provides is a clear update cycle without sacrificing those 9s, as well. You don't have to worry about whether or not the latest batch of Dell machines is going to have bad capacitors that will incur 10% more expenses. No, you pay for all of the potential costs up front, at once, for high reliability.
For a lot of big businesses this makes a lot of sense to them. It's reliable, it doesn't depend on network technicians and system administrators and properly inspected requisitions for new equipment. It doesn't require a lot of the overhead that in-house departments would have to take on. Instead, they give you a big ol' box and a number to call if you manage to break it.
Unfortunately the cell phone providers are providing what is by many considered an essential service, it is at least in the business world. This means they are negotiating from a position of power. Furthermore, there really is no negotiation. You never get to determine terms, you merely accept one of a few choices of contract and all that it entails. No negotiation and an unfair position for the two parties make, from what I understand (IANAL,) a weak contractual foundation.
NYCL out there to correct me?
"... I can encourage installing Emacs, GCC or OpenOffice on Windows, but I should not encourage installing non-free programs on GNU/Linux or BSD, just as I should not encourage installing Windows."
"Providing a recipe to install a non-free program is very direct and clear support for its use. Making your free program work with something non-free if that's already installed is not such a direct message of support."
This is from this very same thread started by me, view the GGP thread to see sources (can't figure out how to put URLs in this AJAXy system and the previews didn't convert <a> a tags.) This is also the reasoning for the existence of gNewSense, because Debian -is- only Free Software. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever he couldn't just say, here's gNewSense, it's Debian renamed and without the non-free repositories.
Instead, he appears to be offended by the fact that they make it easy to install non-free software (gasp, choice) and that Debian uses trademarks to prevent other people from soiling the name.
You're also paying through the nose for every extra nine of uptime.
That's not to say it's impossible, IBM, HP, any of the "big iron" companies can offer you damn near 100% uptime without major changes to your software.
But be prepared to pull out the checkbook. You know, the REALLY BIG one that is only suitable for writing lots of zeroes and grand prize giveaways.
But Stallman has specifically said that even giving people the choice to install non-free software is heinous. In this case, the fact that Debian even has the OPTION of non-free repositories is bad. Not that it's even the default.
Because he truly thinks intellectual property is evil and won't associate himself with a product that encourages it with that form of licensing. The mere fact that you can't call a fork Firefox offends Stallman, or evidently does so.
While the most common open source app on Windows is of course... Firefox.
But he can't endorse that because they like to protect their brand name with a trademark, you know, because Stallman thinks trademarks are evil.
The good news is that the mortgages will be cheap and sub-prime rate.
The bad news is that most of the people who get them will be left with only the SSD and not their home.
It's ironic to me that Stallman in this case supports distros which offer users less, as opposed to more choice.
No, it gives strawmen the incentive to develop free and open source drivers while everyone else is doing it for the heck of it, because they can, or because they want to.
It doesn't give anyone any added incentive but the people who use it. So, unless you plan on coding the GNewSense wireless drivers and ATI/nVidia chipset drivers, you're bringing up a strawman.
Anyway, people are working on ATI/nVidia drivers that are free in the GNU definition anyway, with or without the existence of these 'very free' distributions.
I think the only purpose that distros like GNewSense serve, other than one's own ideology, is to show how far Linux and open source has come (very, very far) and how far Linux and open source has to go (still quite a ways.)
Windows 2008 and Vista SP1 use the same kernel right now.
In Kansas, it's just dust in the wind.
I'm sure he'll be better off w/o his pay too.
I'll take out a loan and donate a kidney if he takes and passes a few courses in logic and English from any accredited college.
No, profiting from or providing incentive to profit from (that is, purchasing) child pornography should be illegal, as it should be for any illegal, heinous act. You should no more be able to pay someone to steal something and then sell a video of it than you should be able to pay someone to kill someone or rape someone.
This is a matter completely separate from your slippery slope ideas that we should ban them from watching Hostel: no one was harmed in Hostel. Snuff films -can- be made without killing people, "loli" porn -can- be made without children (there are a lot of people who are 18 who don't look it and are totally willing to do porn.) This isn't a slippery slope matter, you shouldn't be able to profit off, nor should you engage in the distribution of video, picture, or other evidence of illegal acts.
As said by other people in this discussion, if someone buys a book from you which happens to contain some steganographic child porn hidden in it, and then that porn is discovered on their computer, they should be punished. We don't know who they payed, how the content was put there. We may never find that evidence. But not making it illegal to have makes it much, much harder to track down people selling it. It is in fact, nearly impossible to determine where digital media is coming from, though it's very, very easy to determine where it's at when someone has it.
I think it's one of the actual obligations of our nation's FBI and other police organizations to attack -every- aspect of a crime. Not just the crime itself, but anyone who intended to gain from it, whether that is public or private. You SHOULD NOT gain from child porn, true snuff films, films of stealing or in any way breaking the law.
Don't respond with 'stay in the church' to an Atheist by the way. I'm not saying ban fictitious works, I'm not saying ban animated works that harm no one, I'm definitely not saying things like Hostel or Saw are obscene and should fall under the same category. I'm talking about profiting from criminal activity, with the intent to cause that activity or encourage the distribution of the evidence. There are certain things that are absolutely for the public good, or clearly fall under first amendment rights. My ability to satirize the Islamic holy text is inviolate here.
Don't overreact, Scientology has strongarmed many large organizations into removing material under threat of copyright infringement, and Google/Youtube would not be the first to follow up on the DMCA requests filed by Scientology. Moreover, unless the people whose videos were petitioned to be removed file counter-DMCA requests, Google cannot "man up" and defend them. If they ignore one DMCA request in the interest of not doing evil, they can become legally responsible for that material. This vastly increases the cost and responsibility of those who follow through on the many, many, many, MANY DMCA requests that go to Youtube. Instead of having someone simply process a file and check a box, they would have to call in a full ethics and legal review on -every- DMCA request.
Simply put: continue to post critical material on YouTube, but DEFEND IT. When they file DMCA notices, counter-claim them!
Nah, there's more than one political theory there. For example, some people in West Virginia have vehemently expressed their belief that Obama is not 'one of them' despite him being a natural born citizen (a prerequisite for being President, so one would hope he is.)
And there are some people, such as myself, who believe that anyone can become an American. Do I consider Arnold Schwarzenegger foreign or un-American or "not one of us" merely because he was born in a different country? No. That's foolish, he came to America with the desire to succeed and accomplish, and though I don't agree with him (not that it matters, I don't live in California) that doesn't make him not 'one of us.'
We're all here in the same boat, anyway.
Citation needed.
Child porn downloading needs to be made illegal to increase the cost of making and distributing it. That is, if downloads weren't illegal and the people downloading it weren't afraid of getting caught, their cost/benefit would be different. Making it legal to download but not to make child porn decreases the cost for consumers, which would make it more easily profitable for sellers. And for producers in foreign countries would have more direct, legit distribution. That would encourage more child porn, etc.
As it is, I see no problem with banning something heinous all the way from its act to the distribution of it, so long as the people along the way aren't paying to see said act. Creating child porn should be made as costly, as dangerous, as illegal as possible, and the dissemination of it similarly so. It's not just obscene material, which can be broadcast for the national good (such as terrorist videos, assassinations of world leaders, the WTC attacks,) it's obscene material -created- by people who sought to create obscene material and profit from it. That's the distinction. I would consider true snuff films to be in the same category. This isn't just some journalist sneaking into Burma and taping a protest and the subsequent killing of monks in order to show the world what's happening. That journalist did not cause those events to happen, he is a passive observer informing the world of a tragedy. The people shooting child porn or taking pictures of it... ugh, they are causing horrible things to happen with the intent of distributing them.
Too little, too late. If he gave blanket redistribution permission in the past, that's out in the wild. He can't retroactively change the permission he's given. That is why you or I can't attempt to un-GPL the Linux kernel by submitting vitally important code, waiting a few years until it's necessary to the smooth operation of the kernel, and then saying, nah, I take it back.
What if before they clicked "I Agree" they removed the EULA before it ever appeared? Would it fall under copyright infringement then, or is there some way to get around -that- by instead using a shim code that disables the EULA in some way without ever rewriting anything on the OSX disc?
If I create an extremely vital set of components for Windows that eventually everyone feels like they couldn't live without, but can actually be shipped without Windows, should I require everyone to refer to Windows as AnpheusIsAwesome/Windows?
Far better to slow when being tailgated than risk a crash, which is going to make rush hour tenfold worse for everyone behind them, or to wait until the last possible moment to brake.
In rush hour traffic, the worst thing that can happen is traffic halts entirely at any point. That halting means everyone has to slow down, the gaps between cars shrink to inches, and accelerating out of that will ripple, -slowly- down the road.
If you're being tailgated, not slowing down is a safety risk that can also put traffic at a standstill.
Wow, a URL block fails to catch it if you change the URL's domain name? What happens if you change the TLD? Jesus christ, someone alert... the someone in charge of this madness! It must be stopped!
It's a lie by omission. It bolsters his argument by making a true claim, that nuclear power sources can't be carbon neutral if the construction and transportation involved uses oil sources, without advertising the fact that the same thing applies to every other power source.
Over its lifetime, however, nuclear power is far, far closer to carbon neutral than any current oil or coal source. And ideally if we can get an electric car infrastructure working, we can make the construction of a nuclear power plant carbon neutral.