I think the "developed" world bears some responsibility for cleaning up the mess it created
This gets bandied about all the time. I'm not so sure it really is all that true. Is it really the developed worlds fault that the less-developed nations have the problems they do? I've yet to see a convincing argument of that. From what I can tell, most that make this argument basically assume the premise that those who lose in history/culturally didn't *deserve* (as if that has some meanining in this context) to. Somehow, the premise assumes that every culture deserves to flourish on its own and should not be interfered with or eliminated by superior culture (superior being defined in the Darwinian sense of, "the winner is superior"). Why is this taken for granted? Why should this be so? I've never heard a convincing argument beyond, "Well, our ancestors were meanies and we should feel guilty for that!" I call BULLSHIT!
Where's the Science to support this claim? Everything I've read, including a more than 20 year study of cell-phone users, concludes that it is not the case. Without the science, he should SHUT THE FUCK UP! I am so sick and tired of everything being ruled my malicious ignorance and stupidity. All the people who refuse to use science (i.e. Obser-fucking-vation) to form policy, guide their actions, and make decisions, and would rather use tea leaves, bones, or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass, need to FUCKING DIE!
So, if I acquire a piece of open source software, I should be able to use it however I want?
Yes, that is correct. GPL permits you to use GPL software however you want. Only if you choose to MODIFY AND DISTRIBUTE must you adhere to the rules of making available the source code with your changes.
JUST WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK IS THE MIDDLE? I'm so sick and tired of hearing this. You are full of shit. All you fucking republicans should be lined up against a wall and shot.
Microsoft Office is MUCH less important then most people tend to believe. In almost every company I've worked, although every single desktop had MS Office, only about 2 to 3% of people actually used Office in any meaningful way that leveraged features unique to it.
Trac (Python-based) or JTrac (Java/Wikit Based) work great. Of the two, Trac is definitely superior functionality-wise, but, I've found JTrac easy to deploy and plenty sufficient. See here:
Who are you or the goverment to say I don't have the right to drive? Driving IS MOST certainly a right because one is unable to function in our society normally without the ability to drive. That being said, my rights can be taken away by violating laws that we've all implicitly or explicitly agreed to as a society (i.e. no drunk driving, no drugged driving, no driving while getting a blow-job, etc, etc).
Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, systems, or methods.
Given the above, can someone please explain to me why Computer Software is copyrightable?
There are two political parties ALWAYS under ANY system. Those parties are as follows: 1) "For the Status Quo/Those In Power", 2) "For those who do not currently have power". Once party two succeeds in taking power from party 1, the roles reverse. Plain and simple. Classic case of HAVES vs HAVE NOTS. It always has been and always will be this way. Naturally, you will choose to align yourself with whichever party is fighting for you. So, if you are part of the power-structure and/or are mostly benefitting from it, you will be aligned with 1. If, on the other hand, you do not feel you are getting enough benefit, you will be aligned with 2. It's that simple. There really is nothing else to consider.
This is nonsense. It IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN easier to read stupid magazine/newspaper columns than fully wide pages of a book. It is annoying to read narrow columns. Magazines and Newspapers (and now many Websites) format like this so the can squeeze in as much annoying advertising as possilbe. It has absolutely nothing to do with making it easier to read, and in fact, makes it harder. Everytime I hear someone repeate this nonsense I want to punch a baby in the face!
You say, "there should not be a law...". Well, if there were no law, then the copyright holder would have no protections whatsoever. Absent a law, you have no ability or right to stop me from doing anything I want with respect to copying of a copyable work. Only the law grants you a limited monopoly. In exchange for that limited monopoly (benefitting, you, the copyright holder) there is supposed to be a benefit to society as a whole. Lose site of that, and there is no reason to have copyright. So, now that we agree that there should be a law, let's debate the nature of the law. So, explain to me why there *should not* be a law to force certain exemptions. What is a logical reason that such a prohibition should exist. I'm sorry, but, there isn't one.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people's brains aren't worth saving.
Marriage has little to do with religion historically, and everything to do with wealth/property rights.
People have been using cell-phones for 20 years (at least).
I think the "developed" world bears some responsibility for cleaning up the mess it created
This gets bandied about all the time. I'm not so sure it really is all that true. Is it really the developed worlds fault that the less-developed nations have the problems they do? I've yet to see a convincing argument of that. From what I can tell, most that make this argument basically assume the premise that those who lose in history/culturally didn't *deserve* (as if that has some meanining in this context) to. Somehow, the premise assumes that every culture deserves to flourish on its own and should not be interfered with or eliminated by superior culture (superior being defined in the Darwinian sense of, "the winner is superior"). Why is this taken for granted? Why should this be so? I've never heard a convincing argument beyond, "Well, our ancestors were meanies and we should feel guilty for that!" I call BULLSHIT!
I'd guess that the "s?" is a given considering what he's telling you to suck, no? (The again, in this day and age, maybe not...AAAAGGGHhHH!)
being ruled by malicious
Where's the Science to support this claim? Everything I've read, including a more than 20 year study of cell-phone users, concludes that it is not the case. Without the science, he should SHUT THE FUCK UP! I am so sick and tired of everything being ruled my malicious ignorance and stupidity. All the people who refuse to use science (i.e. Obser-fucking-vation) to form policy, guide their actions, and make decisions, and would rather use tea leaves, bones, or the dingle-berries they pick out of their ass, need to FUCKING DIE!
Just what the fuck in the GPLv3 are you claiming makes it a "USE LICENSE"? I call BU-U-U-U-L-L-L-L-SHIT!
So, if I acquire a piece of open source software, I should be able to use it however I want?
Yes, that is correct. GPL permits you to use GPL software however you want. Only if you choose to MODIFY AND DISTRIBUTE must you adhere to the rules of making available the source code with your changes.
All that development work was/is expensive.
I doubt it. Not in the grand scheme.
Subject says it all.
JUST WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK IS THE MIDDLE? I'm so sick and tired of hearing this. You are full of shit. All you fucking republicans should be lined up against a wall and shot.
Microsoft Office is MUCH less important then most people tend to believe. In almost every company I've worked, although every single desktop had MS Office, only about 2 to 3% of people actually used Office in any meaningful way that leveraged features unique to it.
I don't think it means what you think it does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The deal hasn't gone through yet.
Trac (Python-based) or JTrac (Java/Wikit Based) work great. Of the two, Trac is definitely superior functionality-wise, but, I've found JTrac easy to deploy and plenty sufficient. See here:
Trac - http://trac.edgewall.org/
JTrac - http://www.jtrac.info/
Who are you or the goverment to say I don't have the right to drive? Driving IS MOST certainly a right because one is unable to function in our society normally without the ability to drive. That being said, my rights can be taken away by violating laws that we've all implicitly or explicitly agreed to as a society (i.e. no drunk driving, no drugged driving, no driving while getting a blow-job, etc, etc).
Why are you posting anonymously? If you really believe what you are saying, you should stand and be counted.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
Given the above, can someone please explain to me why Computer Software is copyrightable?
Nice summary of why the "Free Market" isn't always the solution to everything.
There are two political parties ALWAYS under ANY system. Those parties are as follows: 1) "For the Status Quo/Those In Power", 2) "For those who do not currently have power". Once party two succeeds in taking power from party 1, the roles reverse. Plain and simple. Classic case of HAVES vs HAVE NOTS. It always has been and always will be this way. Naturally, you will choose to align yourself with whichever party is fighting for you. So, if you are part of the power-structure and/or are mostly benefitting from it, you will be aligned with 1. If, on the other hand, you do not feel you are getting enough benefit, you will be aligned with 2. It's that simple. There really is nothing else to consider.
This is nonsense. It IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN easier to read stupid magazine/newspaper columns than fully wide pages of a book. It is annoying to read narrow columns. Magazines and Newspapers (and now many Websites) format like this so the can squeeze in as much annoying advertising as possilbe. It has absolutely nothing to do with making it easier to read, and in fact, makes it harder. Everytime I hear someone repeate this nonsense I want to punch a baby in the face!
Typographers know that overlong lines make reading harder from over five centuries of experience printing books.
This is a myth and has been proven false in multiple studies.It is absolute bunk. Please stop spreading this stupid rumor.
You say, "there should not be a law...". Well, if there were no law, then the copyright holder would have no protections whatsoever. Absent a law, you have no ability or right to stop me from doing anything I want with respect to copying of a copyable work. Only the law grants you a limited monopoly. In exchange for that limited monopoly (benefitting, you, the copyright holder) there is supposed to be a benefit to society as a whole. Lose site of that, and there is no reason to have copyright. So, now that we agree that there should be a law, let's debate the nature of the law. So, explain to me why there *should not* be a law to force certain exemptions. What is a logical reason that such a prohibition should exist. I'm sorry, but, there isn't one.
...EPIC FAIL...