Showing respect is treating them nicely: politely listening when they speak, refraining from name-calling... you know, civility.
That requires reciprocity. No matter how nicely you treat some people, they are just rude back. And I'm not really into this "turn the other cheek" stuff.
Yes, you should. You should do it because acting respectfully towards others is the right thing to do.
As I said, I won't show any respect to people that show no respect for me. Acting respectfully to others as a default is surely the right thing to do, but that does not apply if someone does not reciprocally show any respect for me. Then I go into disrespect mode for this individual.
The first step to changing someone's thinking is to establish a peaceful relationship with them.
Changing the thinking of creationists and ID-proponents is a pipe dream. And by their actions of trying to dress up old fairy tales as science, and putting these in science education, they have lost all my respect, and I actually like to show them my sheer lack of respect for their silly beliefs.
Besides, I don't know about you, but I'd far rather have people in my society treating each other with respect than with hostility.
Yeah, that would be nice, and it is my default stance. But when met with hostility and/or disrespect, I do not turn the other cheek, but show them disrespect and hostility in return. That's only fair. They get what they earn.
On the other hand, usability issues that get fixed quickly under OS X
One area where they haven't fixed serious usability issues is in Spaces. They updated the behavior in 10.5.3, but I wouldn't call that an improvement. Until they fix Spaces to work better, I'd consider it a case of shipping beta-quality software.
There's a difference between having respect and showing respect.
No, I didn't know, and I still don't. Care to elaborate?
Having respect has to be earned. Showing respect is the default for every man, woman, and child alive.
So one should show everyone respect even though they don't earn it? That does not make sense. What sort of silly idea is that? I should pretend that I respect them while I really don't?
That said, there is a base level of respect that I have and show towards people that I don't know of as a default. People can then diminish or increase this level depending on their actions. No creationist I have ever met (creationists that have not voiced their opinions on the matter does not count, as I wouldn't know that they are creationists) has ever increased my respect for them, quite the contrary.
1. Creationists are not one unit and should not be treated as such.
Young earth creationists are almost the same, the entire bunch.
2. It's the right goddamn thing to do, that's why!
Respect has to be earned, and to this date, creationists has done nothing to earn my respect, quite the contrary. Additionally, any demand for respect inherently lowers my respect for the demanding party. And creationists frequently demands respect.
But just to play your idiotic little game, what is macro evolution?
According to creationists I have spoken to, macro-evolution is when a bacteria on a petri dish suddenly evolves into an elephant, or when a horse suddenly grows wings and flies away.:)
Wow, what a great atmosphere of mutual respect that's gonna foster in our society.
Creationists show no respect at all for my position, so why should I show them any respect for theirs? They want to push these fairy tales dressed up as science on young kids who do not understand what to make up of those claims. They deserve all disrespect that they get.
The reason I have this information is a combination of the ACTA treaty information released on Wikileake and some information a friend of mine in parliament has managed to dig up on the issue.
The representatives themselves are answerable to the people.
I'm actually not sure that they are, at least not in the EU. This treaty is being negotiated by the (unelected) EU commission, who got their mandate from a meeting of the ministers of agriculture and fisheries, where it appeared as an "A-item", which is voted on without discussion. When signed by the EU commission, it will be mandatory for member states to implement as laws. Our national politicians will just blame it on the EU, like for so many other directives.
The EU decided this, and we are forced to obey, they'll say. They'll not mention that the EU could not have negotiated the treaty if they hadn't agreed to let them do that.
They could do that, but they shouldn't misrepresent it as being LGPL. If someone claims that their software is licensed under the LGPL, I assume that I don't have to read their version, since I know the LGPL already. If using a modified version, they should call it something else.
And he released it under LGPL first to build up a user base.
While misrepresenting the LGPL in the process. Slapping a "no commercial use" clause on LGPL isn't possible, at least not while claiming that the project is licensed under the LGPL. LGPL with added restrictions wouldn't be LGPL any more.
Since added restrictions are incompatible with the (L)GPL, it is pretty unclear how the license should be interpreted. One thing is clear though: If the code would have been true (L)GPL at some point, they have no case demanding a commercial license for such versions, as the author explicitly waives the right to retroactively relicense a previously released version of the software when putting them under the (L)GPL.
They originally licensed as "LGPL", but with the added proviso that it was only for non-commercial use.
That isn't really possible. A "no commercial use" clause would be an added restriction, which isn't allowed by the (L)GPL.
Since the whole point of the LGPL is to allow commercial apps to link with it, this made little sense.
Don't confuse proprietary with commercial. The point of the LGPL is to let proprietary applications link with it without becoming subject to the (L)GPL themselves. It says nothing about commercial activities at all.
Now they've gone to GPL3.0, only for non-commercial use
Which, again, is silly, as "no commercial use" is still incompatible with the (L)GPL.
which is a little more honest about their intent.
Why? Neither the GPL (v2 nor v3) nor the LGPL (v2 nor v3) restricts commercial use. Why would it be more honest in this case?
Apparently some have tried to fork the original "LGPL" code, but since it never has been released without the "no non-commercial apps" restriction, using any forked code in a commercial product is copyright infringement.
The FSF should sue them for trademark infringement (if they have trademarked the (L)GPL, which I would have done if I were them, to prevent issues like this), as they claim to license their work under the (L)GPL while they clearly do not.
If a company does not sell (or provide) any software, but rather some service that isn't easy to duplicate, programmers can get paid regardless of whether all software is free or not. Customization and integration, as well as development of internal specialty software are not likely to stop even if all software would be made free.
GPL on the other hand leans towards the original developer's rights since under it, any changes or additions made are freely available to the original developer as well as anybody else who wants it.
This is incorrect. The source code only has to be released to the recipient of the binary. If I provide you with a binary of a product licensed under the GPL, I have to provide you with the source code, not anybody else. Of course, you can release the code to anyone you want in turn if you wish, but I don't have to.
You must be using a different Internet, because I've never seen this argument at all. No one who uses BSD, or Apache, or any of the other truly free licenses cares about getting contributions back.
No? Then what is this? BSD fanboys all over the place threw a big hissy fit because someone dared to slap the GPL on a derivative of a previously BSD-licensed driver. "You canoot GPL a derivative of a BSD-licensed work", they claimed, while they didn't mind software companies including their code in their proprietary products without giving anything back at all.
However, his patent on his algorithm does not block everyone ELSE from solving the same problem using their own algorithm. It just stops people from using HIS algorithm without his permission, or making a profit on HIS algorithm without paying him for it.
Ever heard of parallel inventions? Let's say that I and some guy invent the same algorithm independently. But since he got to the patent office first, I would have to pay him to sell products based on my own invention. This has happened in the past, and it will surely happen again. Does this seem fair to you?
Whether the US government is obligated to protect the rights of anyone other than a US citizen is a matter of much debate
They are, or US citizens around the world will quickly be declared fair game. If the US won't protect our citizens while they are visiting the US, why should we protect US citizens while they visit us?
Or are you proposing that US taxpayers should pay for the good of all mankind and expect nothing in return? Surely you realize that research can be as effectively exploited by Hungarians as by Americans.
Of course, but Americans are not the only taxpayers paying for research that can be used by other countries. Most researchers around the world publish their results, and American businesses can benefit from those foreign discoveries just as much as foreign businesses can benefit from American discoveries.
Support does not only mean a help desk and bug fixes, but also include customization and integration with the customers' existing systems. Even if you would write perfect bug-free software, those two demands wouldn't magically vanish.
Where does hardware requirements of Aero really come from?
That's a really good question, as one of the advantages of Aero touted by the Windows fanboys and astroturfers were that most GUI operations would now be moved from the CPU to the GPU, easing the load on the CPU compared with Windows XP.
Slashdot Mirror
That requires reciprocity. No matter how nicely you treat some people, they are just rude back. And I'm not really into this "turn the other cheek" stuff.
Yes, you should. You should do it because acting respectfully towards others is the right thing to do.As I said, I won't show any respect to people that show no respect for me. Acting respectfully to others as a default is surely the right thing to do, but that does not apply if someone does not reciprocally show any respect for me. Then I go into disrespect mode for this individual.
The first step to changing someone's thinking is to establish a peaceful relationship with them.Changing the thinking of creationists and ID-proponents is a pipe dream. And by their actions of trying to dress up old fairy tales as science, and putting these in science education, they have lost all my respect, and I actually like to show them my sheer lack of respect for their silly beliefs.
Besides, I don't know about you, but I'd far rather have people in my society treating each other with respect than with hostility.Yeah, that would be nice, and it is my default stance. But when met with hostility and/or disrespect, I do not turn the other cheek, but show them disrespect and hostility in return. That's only fair. They get what they earn.
Yes, but did they intend to disable tracing of all applications running concurrently with a non-traceable application? Which is what they did.
One area where they haven't fixed serious usability issues is in Spaces. They updated the behavior in 10.5.3, but I wouldn't call that an improvement. Until they fix Spaces to work better, I'd consider it a case of shipping beta-quality software.
No, I didn't know, and I still don't. Care to elaborate?
Having respect has to be earned. Showing respect is the default for every man, woman, and child alive.So one should show everyone respect even though they don't earn it? That does not make sense. What sort of silly idea is that? I should pretend that I respect them while I really don't?
That said, there is a base level of respect that I have and show towards people that I don't know of as a default. People can then diminish or increase this level depending on their actions. No creationist I have ever met (creationists that have not voiced their opinions on the matter does not count, as I wouldn't know that they are creationists) has ever increased my respect for them, quite the contrary.
Young earth creationists are almost the same, the entire bunch.
2. It's the right goddamn thing to do, that's why!Respect has to be earned, and to this date, creationists has done nothing to earn my respect, quite the contrary. Additionally, any demand for respect inherently lowers my respect for the demanding party. And creationists frequently demands respect.
According to creationists I have spoken to, macro-evolution is when a bacteria on a petri dish suddenly evolves into an elephant, or when a horse suddenly grows wings and flies away. :)
Creationists show no respect at all for my position, so why should I show them any respect for theirs? They want to push these fairy tales dressed up as science on young kids who do not understand what to make up of those claims. They deserve all disrespect that they get.
Yes, there is. A fact is an observation, plain and simple.
The reason I have this information is a combination of the ACTA treaty information released on Wikileake and some information a friend of mine in parliament has managed to dig up on the issue.
I'm actually not sure that they are, at least not in the EU. This treaty is being negotiated by the (unelected) EU commission, who got their mandate from a meeting of the ministers of agriculture and fisheries, where it appeared as an "A-item", which is voted on without discussion. When signed by the EU commission, it will be mandatory for member states to implement as laws. Our national politicians will just blame it on the EU, like for so many other directives.
The EU decided this, and we are forced to obey, they'll say. They'll not mention that the EU could not have negotiated the treaty if they hadn't agreed to let them do that.
Such as?
Our trust in authoroty of this kind is strong since it have served us well in the past.You mean your trust. I, for one, do not trust them anymore than any other government. And in what instance did it serve us well in the past?
They did, noting that the new law would make their already active wiretapping legal.
They could do that, but they shouldn't misrepresent it as being LGPL. If someone claims that their software is licensed under the LGPL, I assume that I don't have to read their version, since I know the LGPL already. If using a modified version, they should call it something else.
While misrepresenting the LGPL in the process. Slapping a "no commercial use" clause on LGPL isn't possible, at least not while claiming that the project is licensed under the LGPL. LGPL with added restrictions wouldn't be LGPL any more.
Since added restrictions are incompatible with the (L)GPL, it is pretty unclear how the license should be interpreted. One thing is clear though: If the code would have been true (L)GPL at some point, they have no case demanding a commercial license for such versions, as the author explicitly waives the right to retroactively relicense a previously released version of the software when putting them under the (L)GPL.
IANAL though.
That isn't really possible. A "no commercial use" clause would be an added restriction, which isn't allowed by the (L)GPL.
Since the whole point of the LGPL is to allow commercial apps to link with it, this made little sense.Don't confuse proprietary with commercial. The point of the LGPL is to let proprietary applications link with it without becoming subject to the (L)GPL themselves. It says nothing about commercial activities at all.
Now they've gone to GPL3.0, only for non-commercial useWhich, again, is silly, as "no commercial use" is still incompatible with the (L)GPL.
which is a little more honest about their intent.Why? Neither the GPL (v2 nor v3) nor the LGPL (v2 nor v3) restricts commercial use. Why would it be more honest in this case?
Apparently some have tried to fork the original "LGPL" code, but since it never has been released without the "no non-commercial apps" restriction, using any forked code in a commercial product is copyright infringement.The FSF should sue them for trademark infringement (if they have trademarked the (L)GPL, which I would have done if I were them, to prevent issues like this), as they claim to license their work under the (L)GPL while they clearly do not.
If a company does not sell (or provide) any software, but rather some service that isn't easy to duplicate, programmers can get paid regardless of whether all software is free or not. Customization and integration, as well as development of internal specialty software are not likely to stop even if all software would be made free.
This is incorrect. The source code only has to be released to the recipient of the binary. If I provide you with a binary of a product licensed under the GPL, I have to provide you with the source code, not anybody else. Of course, you can release the code to anyone you want in turn if you wish, but I don't have to.
If you don't believe me, read the GPL.
True, except for including the code in a GPL:ed project, making the derivative work licensed under the GPL.
No? Then what is this? BSD fanboys all over the place threw a big hissy fit because someone dared to slap the GPL on a derivative of a previously BSD-licensed driver. "You canoot GPL a derivative of a BSD-licensed work", they claimed, while they didn't mind software companies including their code in their proprietary products without giving anything back at all.
Ever heard of parallel inventions? Let's say that I and some guy invent the same algorithm independently. But since he got to the patent office first, I would have to pay him to sell products based on my own invention. This has happened in the past, and it will surely happen again. Does this seem fair to you?
They are, or US citizens around the world will quickly be declared fair game. If the US won't protect our citizens while they are visiting the US, why should we protect US citizens while they visit us?
Of course, but Americans are not the only taxpayers paying for research that can be used by other countries. Most researchers around the world publish their results, and American businesses can benefit from those foreign discoveries just as much as foreign businesses can benefit from American discoveries.
Support does not only mean a help desk and bug fixes, but also include customization and integration with the customers' existing systems. Even if you would write perfect bug-free software, those two demands wouldn't magically vanish.
It sounds nice, but until it happens, it's just vaporware. I'll believe it when I see it.
That's a really good question, as one of the advantages of Aero touted by the Windows fanboys and astroturfers were that most GUI operations would now be moved from the CPU to the GPU, easing the load on the CPU compared with Windows XP.