Seriously though, none of your fancy language above is relevant to your original sentence, in which finite and tangible were used redundantly. sorry about that.
They're not redundant. Finite and tangible are separate properties. Some people make the argument that finite numbers are required--intangible entities can be finite or infinite. Others say that it requires tangibility, which is a totally different line of reasoning and completely indefensible, as stealing has long been idiomatically associated with things that are intangible. Covering the bases requires mentioning both, as the active elements of each and the flaws in the reasoning are different.
No one is claiming that such a fact creates redundancy, are they, which leaves you arguing against a straw man?
To answer your question, no.
Here's an exercise for you, purely in terms of distinctions of interaction, define redundancy in logical argument in terms of class membership. Good luck.
Redundancy requires that there be no difference in properties or their associative qualities. If one property contains a different set of members than another, it is not redundant. It may be inclusive, but if any given logical statement can be true for one class and simultaneously false for the other class, it cannot be redundant.
Sweet, avoiding the issue by intentionally misinterpreting your opponent's abbreviations, I was waiting for you to pull that one out of the hat.
Well, it's a mystery why you waited since your own statement broke that barrier. Your characterization of the process was and is flawed, and there's nothing wrong with my interpretation. There's something wrong with your construction, namely the idiotic attempt to define 'copying' as the active act, and the even more idiotic attempt to assert that copying is fundamentally different from taking. It's clear you don't understand the process at work. Coming into possession of something to which you are not authorized to have by your actions is stealing.
before you go on about how words in the dictionary have multiple convenient definitions to use.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't have any bearing on your own ridiculous self-contradiction. Your willful ignorance of the most basic definitions, or the existence of multiple definitions, does not matter. You said "steal code" and you've been arguing, quite poorly, that such a construction is impossible.
You used it! So you can accept it to maintain consistency or you can deny it and show your underlying, fundamental agreement with the statement, which makes you a hack. You're either very stupid, or trolling in yet another exercise in GPL faux superiority.
All 10 of these are about those who favor the GPL, claiming that they are insulting and intolerant.
First, that's not true, as there are posts in this very thread about how the GPL is the "free" way to do things. Second, none of the ten are about "those who favor" the GPL as a whole. Third, the braying superiority comes out in articles not about the GPL, with the clear intent of harping on others.
This irony is the actual point of this exchange, you just don't realize it.
There is no irony. My intolerance is intentional. You don't seem to be getting that.
Yes, and if you proved a theorem about rectangles, and then sat down to see if that theorem were true for squares, you would be doing something... redundant.
Finite and tangible are separate properties, and need not, for the sake of ontological models, be redundant. With regard to distinctions of interaction, the fact that all members of a class overlap with the members of a different class creates no redundancy. As to rectangles and squares, that is a consequence of geometry.
If you were to take a more obscure version of the metaphor, a biological analysis of the eggplant might not apply to a potato, though they are both members of the solanum genus.
the laughably flawed and childishly simple rephrasement, "copying = taking = stealing'
That's an odd characterization, which forces the inappropriate and legally invalid reduction of a term and the insertion of an irrelevant one. Copyright infringement == stealing. Copyright infringement != copying.
This isn't true, because copying =/= taking
I suggest you check a dictionary. Taking includes such actions as acquiring, actively coming into possession of, and assuming control of.
What's truly beautiful here is that you're defeating your own damn argument. If copying != taking, then your statement about "stealing code" is facially invalid. Of course, you're a trolling jackass, so you're probably okay with that.
Of course, that's redundant, as anything which is tangible is necessarily finite
A square is a rectangle...
That which is finite is not necessarily tangible. Glad to see you really thought that one through, though.
you can't counter the argument "Copying isn't theft, because theft refers to physical objects of property", by framing the argument in terms of stealing, or taking things, because those also refer to physical objects of property
To steal is to take without authorization. You can steal an idea, a copyright, a book, a lover, a look at confidential files, or any other number of things.
Stealing is not theft, but theft is one form of stealing. Theft is a legal term of art and no more applicable than 'easement'. To rely on that argument is to fail utterly.
Copyright infringement absolutely is stealing, just as distributing GPL code without disclosing modifications is stealing. Neither is theft.
Oh, and for the sake of everyone trying to parse that mess of words: next time you try to sound like an adult, at least try to compose coherent, English sentences.
If you don't like GPL licensed code then don't use it.
I don't have a problem with the GPL, GPL licensed code, or using and contributing as required by the GPL. That isn't the issue, and you know it.
Nobody writing GPL code is forcing anyone to use it.
That's just plain wrong. GPL zealots are the loudest, most intolerant people in the software industry. They condemn proprietary licenses entirely, and they brow-beat all the other groups advancing contrary licenses (MIT, BSD, CC). A vocal minority has turned it into a holy war, and anyone who doesn't agree with them doesn't "get" it, because the GPL is the One True Way. Enough is enough--I'm done tolerating the intolerant, superior, false crap.
You can't take a Microsoft product and do what you want with it... With Microsoft you have to give money, with the GPL you give away code
Exactly! You're trading one set of restrictions for another. The GPL isn't "free", it's just different.
stop calling people names because you can't steal their code
Ah, and there we come to another pet peeve, because many of these same outspoken zealots are the ones that ignorantly spam Slashdot in copyright threads that copyright infringement isn't stealing (it is, and when it's pointed out to them, they build up their straw men about the property crime theft--despite frequent correction that stealing is not theft and stealing is merely the act of taking something to which you are not entitled, without any need for it to be finite, tangible, or valuable).
The developer releasing under the GPL would still have their code, and full control of it. What he wouldn't have is the third party's code, but you can't steal your own code.
Finally, if the code were truly given away and truly free, there would be nothing to steal.
The average of the medians of the five broadcast networks is 50 (i.e. each network had a respective median age of 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 [made-up numbers], which averages to 50). There is nothing wrong with TFA.
And when I donate source code I donate it with the intention that any end user be allowed to modify and run it, wherever or on whatever they recieved that code from. If Tivo wants to prevent the end user from doing that they have the free choice to not use my code.
Your code isn't "donated"--you're still profiting from it, you're just not charging for it. End users would be able to use your code wherever and whenever they wanted. What you're really saying is that you want access to Tivo's code in exchange for giving them yours for free.
That's not intellectual freedom. That's cross-licensing. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't hide behind a bullshit philosophy and claims of "freedom". Tivo isn't preventing the end user from seeing, having, modifying, using, or pissing on your code, and your argument is just a pile of steaming dung.
If Tivo's abuse of the intent of GPL prevents products _better_ than Tivo from appearing, I'd say that's a Bad Thing.
Tivo hasn't abused anything. No one is "prevented" from doing something better than Tivo. They have access to the same starting point that Tivo had. If they really had the skill to outperform them, they wouldn't need the handicap. They'd write better code, and people would buy their product and not Tivo's.
They do, however, have a problem with someone else harming others.
Then why do they do it? GPL zealots are rabid, angry, superior assholes who give the open source movement as a whole a bad name. They're hell-bent on pushing their own greedy restrictions down the throats of everyone, while mocking other approaches, all in the name of "freedom" (where freedom is selectively defined).
Free software is the epitome of free market economics; it's the enforcement of absolute competition.
no strings attached. The GPL patently falls outside this category. They are tying the hands of would-be competitors by limiting their options. You'd have to be deluded to believe otherwise. The GPL builds on the same state-protected monopoly rights and would be utterly unenforceable without them.
Absolute competition means accepting the possibility that someone will abuse your hospitality and generosity. That is why a truly free market does not work, unless you ignore the environment, human health, and business survival.
DVDs: ~$15-20. BD: ~$25-30. Yes, that's a significant expense.
Netflix has over 55 million discs in its warehouse(s), though how many are BD is not clear. They certainly do not pay more than retail for discs, though the extent of their discount and any independent licensing agreements they've reached with studios are obviously trade secrets.
Natural rights don't have anything to do with anything.
Creators do indeed have a fundamental right to that which they create, however, and that includes nothing short of complete dominion.
Calling it a restraint on trade is a clever, but ultimately ineffective, approach. Any property right is by definition a restraint on trade. Further, the implication that trade should be wholly unrestrained is ipso facto invalid. Just look at what happens to water quality.
Why? Each disc is more expensive on the whole, and the number of users is smaller. The cost of providing the service, per user, is considerably higher for BD customers than for DVD customers, and since the DVD customers can't use the BD, why should they have to subsidize those of us wanting BD titles?
If it's just an extra buck or two per month, it'll be more than reasonable. Remember that prices of BD went up after HD-DVD crapped out, and that with the economy the way it is, BD uptake hasn't exactly exploded. Hell, HDTV penetration isn't even all that impressive yet, nationwide.
Why should I buy a product instead of hiring someone to modify a nearly-done free product for me?
For the same reasons you buy anything as opposed to hiring someone to make it.
1. It's cheaper. 2. It's ready now, off the shelf. 3. It's convenient--you don't have to draw up labor contracts or develop specs. 4. You don't care, in that particular situation, how it works or that it's the perfectly suited product. You just want it to perform a function and move on with your life.
Software is a tool. It is not a movement. Trying to "kill" alternatives is just as greedy and absurd as the people you malign. If they want to release their product a different way, let them. You don't have to do it the same way. Open source is not always the answer.
You misunderstand the scope of the GPL. Despite its wording, the real effect it has is not on freedom of code, but on freedom of whole software projects. On the contrary, it is the supporters of the GPL who dramatically misunderstand its consequences. The GPL is not a project license, period.
Your contention is interesting, but not supported by reality. The release of GPL code is not confined in any way to "the project", nor does the development of closed-off modifications have any impact on the fulfillment of the goal. Lack of progress is not the same thing as detriment.
Even if the original, unmodified code is still present, the new code is competing in the same environment, and people in the project has no longer access to the enhancements - they must rebuild it for themselves. That is what freedom means. If you are releasing something into the wild for free, you must accept the possibility that someone will take it and improve it without sharing those improvements with you.
The net result is that the free rider benefited from the community work, and now the community is left worse than it began. The community is no worse off. It simply isn't the recipient of benefits. Calling the licensee a "free rider" has the exact effect of proving that the license isn't about freedom at all, but merely a different sort of expectation of profit.
The GPL was NEVER intended for that purpose. And thus it is not truly free, in any sense of the word. Excited zealotry notwithstanding, it's exactly as restrictive as a proprietary license, just in different ways to different people.
Now that was pure trolling. GPL supporters are ALL for copyright enforcement You can't possibly say that with a straight face. Some of the biggest Slashdot GPL astroturfers are also vocal about copyright infringement not being a detriment, because those people never intended to pay for the product, ergo it is not a "lost sale", or that there is no loss because the creator still has everything he had to begin with (nevermind that that is demonstrably false, because the only thing the creator had was exclusivity, and that property has been taken without intent to return).
That's not to say that there aren't those with a sane approach to the issue, but many of the posters in this thread are not among them.
GPL advocacy crosses into demonstrably false zealotry when it proclaims to be the "freest" license. It simply is not even close. There's nothing wrong with the GPL or its goals, but there is no need to pretend it is something it isn't. The need to establish that false dichotomy seems to be preprogrammed into its supporters, though, because they can't seem to function without declaring proprietary licenses evil and theirs the Holy Lord of Software Licensing.
The right tool for the right job. No software developer should begrudge any other the right to license their hard work and well-deserved property rights in the manner they see fit and to the extent they see fit. Trying to force GPL down everyone's throats is simply another kind of greed, no more or less noble than the peddlers of closed-source licenses.
Do you honestly feel the minor "restriction" (more accurately a simple and easily fulfilled obligation) to not withhold what was freely shared to you is worse than the deliberate act of constructing DRM No, but that's not the restriction (and it's amusing to see the hypocritical redefinition of 'restriction' to "restriction"--if that's not telling, I don't know what is).
The very real restriction is that someone is giving you code, not for free, but with the attached strings that if you want to improve the code and you want to share that product with others, you have to share your code as well. This is offensive and no more or less free than proprietary software.
Continuing to share that which was already freely distributed is one thing; parasitically leeching your own efforts so that you, the creator, no longer have a say...well that's totally different.
In terms of the freedom of all users as a collective, rather than just the subset of users that want to insert DRM to restrict the freedom of all users, there is no Freer licence than the GPL. Horseshit. That's a packaged phrase from the RMS army, but it's not true.
The freest license most people are conversant in is the BSD license in some ways (MIT also has some interesting consequences).
The GPL just swings the pendulum the other way. If proprietary licenses are all about the developers, the GPL is all about the users. Neither generalization is strictly true, but you people complain about closed-source licenses without tolerating the exact same complaints in your holy GPL. Frankly, the GPL isn't free at all.
If it were truly a free release, a person could do anything s/he wanted with that code, including making internal improvements and releasing it under a proprietary license. That has no effect on the original, open code. It still exists. It's still available to anyone who wants it. There's no harm if the original intent was to release "free" code--if you have an expectation of profit, even if it's in the form of gaining free access to the work of another, it's not free. Reciprocity is an economically and intellectually binding force, neither free in spirit nor in price.
The delicious hypocrisy is that GPL zealots are also often the loudest preachers of "copyright infringement doesn't hurt anyone"--and yet, if you dare close off your GPL improvements, they cry havoc.
A house with an open door and a big sign saying "please come in!", and a guy at the door who shows you in. There is no sign and no guy at the door. You can't seriously be this dense.
It's just a street-facing house with an open door.
No, it advertises itself as an open network. Just like a shop uses an "open" sign No. The network is not a business. The analogy fails. Leaving the door to your home open is not an invitation for strangers to enter.
A shop is private property too, but it's property that tells people they can come in. Are you an idiot? BUSINESS INVITEE. You can enter because you are licensed to do so as a business invitee. You are not a business invitee to a wifi network. You must have express permission from the owner.
So far, the analogy still works fine. No. The router or access point does not have legal authority to grant or deny permission. The property owner must. The wifi network is not a business or commercial enterprise. You are not a business invitee to that network.
Honestly, it's not that difficult to grasp. An open network is no different than a house with an open door. It is not a business, nor is it like a business. It is not giving you permission by assigning an internal IP to your machine; the network has zero authority to grant or deny legal permission to use.
I'm talking about entering private property which is open and advertised as such. Like a shop. Or open wifi (although you're not actually entering anything in that case). An open wifi network is not advertised as a shop or other business enterprise. The analogy doesn't make sense.
If you want to enter a shop, do you first track down the owner of the shop to ask his permission to enter the shop? BUSINESS INVITEE. A wifi network is not a shop. It is private property.
The "open" sign on a shop window has zero authority to grant permission to enter the shop, yet its presence counts as sufficient reason to assume you've got permission to enter as long as nobody asks you to leave. Thw wifi protocol just does this in a more explicit manner. The "open" sign in a shop window was intentionally placed there by the owner to alert business invitees that the shop is open for business. The presence or absence of such a sign does not count as sufficient reason to assume you've got permission. The actual status of the store does. An "open" sign on locked door doesn't change the fact that the business is closed and that you do not have permission to enter.
Well, one possible explanation is that DSL required replacement of older telephone wiring from junctions to homes. It required significant overhaul to main backbone lines in a large number of cities. It required new technology at each service office, and it was severely range-limited. Then, even after all of that, line filters were needed to be connected within homes to allow voice telephones to function at the same time.
Cable, on the other hand, required new hardware at central offices, a fraction of the number required for DSL.
Cable companies were able to provide broadband service to more customers while simultaneously spending less money (both per-subscriber and overall) and offering greater peak bandwidth. Cable was far more successful in suburbia, and it was cheaper to deploy in urban locales. Unfortunately, they squandered their infrastructure head start, and are now losing the scalability race. Comcast in the Bay Area just recently (finally!) launched a handful of sorely-missed HD channels, but they still don't have anywhere near the satellite offerings, and they're now triple-packing most of them, so the picture quality has decreased significantly, which previously was their advantage over satellite. The DSL providers and Verizon are both pumping out fiber and providing packet-based, rather than broadcast-based, television technology, and the cable companies are screwed--except that fiber deployment is slow and expensive.
If the cable companies had any sense, they'd move their entire distribution method to On Demand, instead of pumping out all the channels, all the time, freeing up bandwidth for other services while they start replacing their infrastructure as well. The digital transition was a good opportunity for them to do just that, but they watched that pitch sail by, too.
much of the public doesn't understand one simple thing: WiMAX is just another kinda radio. Every kind of wireless is just another kind of radio.
But it does have one real drawback that doesn't really have to do with the nature of the standard itself. That is that it's intended and manufactured for use on licensed spectrum No long-range service can rely purely on unlicensed spectrum in most developed areas. All portions of the spectrum are expensive and scarce these days, and unlicensed spectrum is increasingly cluttered.
WISPs that ignore WiMAX and use other technologies will do better. Such as? UMTS? How is that cheaper? "4G"? It doesn't exist yet. HiperMAN/WiBro? Those are just rebranded WiMAX variants.
If someone disguises his house as an open shop, you can't be blamed for accidentally trespassing (but you should still leave when requested) A network is always private property unless it's operated by the government, so the point is moot. If your intent is to say that it's okay to use a shop's unsecured wifi without permission, you are seriously out in the woods.
Which may be intentionally open for you to use. Absolutely. But it is your responsibility to check with the owner first, or bear the risk of being held liable for trespass.
Fortunately the protocol has foreseen in requests for permission and authorisation. The router has zero authority to give permission, unless you're aware of any access points who are legal owners of property. Only the owner of the property (or tenant with dominion) has the authority to grant or revoke permission.
The real question is why are you defending Apple's unethical bundling - when the same is performed by Microsoft we criticize it. Bundling and peddling are not the same. I have no objection to Microsoft default check boxes to install things. When I install Office, if it tries to select MSN Messenger by default, I will uncheck it. When I fill out registration forms online, those newsletter signups are checked by default. I uncheck them.
Microsoft is free to set whatever checkboxes it wants. That's not bundling--it's not like the data has been downloaded yet or that it comes along without permission. It's not anticompetitive. I don't recall any criticizing Microsoft specifically for the practice of default installations--I recall criticism for not having a checkbox to unmark in the first place
For me, no. For millions of uneducated end users, it is. Get it? No. If you're so stupid that you can't click a box to determine whether or not you want to install a piece of software, you have no business on a computer. It's not a configuration option. You're not deciding whether to include a program feature, or trying to decipher some obscure technical term in your media player's configuration screen.
I don't disagree that it's an annoying practice, regardless of who does it, but it's one that would stop overnight if people actually paid attention to what they're doing. There's no value in it if people take the third of a second to look at what they're clicking on. It's not really any different than a popup message during installation that says, "Would you like to try Safari today?" with brainless-human-drone just tapping the enter key when anything pops up on screen.
If it just started installing one day (e.g. Windows spyware tool on automatic update systems), that would be one thing. But if software presents a screen, telling you exactly what it's going to do if you click the button and giving you the opportunity to change that default if you don't like it, then you're just an idiot for clicking that button.
It's the same deal with malware. On Linux and OS X, asking for an administrator password isn't really for the authentication (for the most part), it's an interruption in the mindless "next" and "OK" clicking done by computer users. It causes people to have to reach out to their keyboard and hopefully in that moment, their brain comes out of standby and says, "Hey! Wait a minute! What am I doing?"
And definitive use in the law, as well. Merriam-Webster is not a particularly accurate, thorough, or disciplined publication. It's fine as a casual reference, but so is Dictionary.com, American Heritage, and Webster's (the REAL Webster's).
The OED is the English language resource, at least in terms of the high water mark for scholarship. It is that disciplined scholarship that leads to its criticism, however. Precise word choice, where it is important, should not be blunted by an overly populist dictionary with demonstrably lower levels of academic scholarship and fidelity.
If the term has become such a point of contention that the precise dictionary definition is required, then OED is the ultimate arbiter. If you're not squabbling over technicalities and just want the basic gist, then any of the other reputable dictionaries, including M-W, are acceptable. Stopping at M-W, on the other hand, is like saying an encyclopedia is a sufficient technical resource. Encyclopedias and dictionaries are by their nature limited. The OED is unquestionably the most detailed English dictionary, and no other resource can make a contrary claim with any real credibility. That's what makes it valuable in academic, technical, and legal research.
A door does not reply with a message granting me access; the fact that it is open, closed, locked, unlocked, slightly ajar or otherwise is legally irrelevant - the important thing with burglary is that you had to break something to gain entry and then take something without permission, with no intention of giving it back. It is relevant. It's a complete fabrication to compare wifi access to burglary. It's trespassing. It's also not simple theft, it's theft of service, a legal term, I assure you, completely outside your contrived "take something physical, no intent to return" construction. Fence or fence, lock or no lock, violating someone's property is trespassing.
the important thing is that it replied back with a message specifically granting me permission. Users are authorised. No, they aren't. If you're not the owner of a property, your grant of permission is irrelevant. Your gardener doesn't get to say who gets to come on your land, and your router likewise doesn't get to decide who gets on your network. You must authorize entry. Whether the access point is secured or unsecured is no substitute for permission. You are free to authorize users to the network, but any user who gains access without knowing whether or not they have permission explicitly assumes the risk that they may be committing theft of service and the digital equivalent of trespassing. It's up to the owner of that network what, if anything, to do about it.
During business hours, you're a business invitee to the property. You have tacit permission to enter, but the owner can still ask you to leave.
There is no such license to enter private property. If the owner hasn't expressly authorized your presence, you're trespassing.
The only way these are similar is that if you use an unsecured wifi network, you must take responsibility for the fact that you may be trespassing. Locked or unlocked, it's still their network. You don't get to enter the house just because the door's open. And before anyone complains about "unsolicited radio waves"--guess what? Radio waves aren't actionable as a nuisance, nor are scents (apart from those indicative of health code violations), nor are the damn photons flying into your eyes. If you want to be certain you're not doing anything improper, seek permission and don't use unsecured networks unless you know you've been authorized. Otherwise, you bear the risk of being at fault for unauthorized access, just like when you go berrypicking in the woods.
In 1980, when most of these homes were last mortgaged, they were $250k. Hence the worthlessness of that statistic. Median mortgage of a 2008 purchase in the area is around $7000/month.
If there's not a slider lever in the tray to accept Darjeeling media, I'm afraid it will never take off in the UK, dooming these machines to the same fate as A4-incompatible printers.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously though, none of your fancy language above is relevant to your original sentence, in which finite and tangible were used redundantly. sorry about that.
They're not redundant. Finite and tangible are separate properties. Some people make the argument that finite numbers are required--intangible entities can be finite or infinite. Others say that it requires tangibility, which is a totally different line of reasoning and completely indefensible, as stealing has long been idiomatically associated with things that are intangible. Covering the bases requires mentioning both, as the active elements of each and the flaws in the reasoning are different.
No one is claiming that such a fact creates redundancy, are they, which leaves you arguing against a straw man?
To answer your question, no.
Here's an exercise for you, purely in terms of distinctions of interaction, define redundancy in logical argument in terms of class membership. Good luck.
Redundancy requires that there be no difference in properties or their associative qualities. If one property contains a different set of members than another, it is not redundant. It may be inclusive, but if any given logical statement can be true for one class and simultaneously false for the other class, it cannot be redundant.
Sweet, avoiding the issue by intentionally misinterpreting your opponent's abbreviations, I was waiting for you to pull that one out of the hat.
Well, it's a mystery why you waited since your own statement broke that barrier. Your characterization of the process was and is flawed, and there's nothing wrong with my interpretation. There's something wrong with your construction, namely the idiotic attempt to define 'copying' as the active act, and the even more idiotic attempt to assert that copying is fundamentally different from taking. It's clear you don't understand the process at work. Coming into possession of something to which you are not authorized to have by your actions is stealing.
before you go on about how words in the dictionary have multiple convenient definitions to use.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't have any bearing on your own ridiculous self-contradiction. Your willful ignorance of the most basic definitions, or the existence of multiple definitions, does not matter. You said "steal code" and you've been arguing, quite poorly, that such a construction is impossible.
You used it! So you can accept it to maintain consistency or you can deny it and show your underlying, fundamental agreement with the statement, which makes you a hack. You're either very stupid, or trolling in yet another exercise in GPL faux superiority.
All 10 of these are about those who favor the GPL, claiming that they are insulting and intolerant.
First, that's not true, as there are posts in this very thread about how the GPL is the "free" way to do things. Second, none of the ten are about "those who favor" the GPL as a whole. Third, the braying superiority comes out in articles not about the GPL, with the clear intent of harping on others.
This irony is the actual point of this exchange, you just don't realize it.
There is no irony. My intolerance is intentional. You don't seem to be getting that.
Yes, and if you proved a theorem about rectangles, and then sat down to see if that theorem were true for squares, you would be doing something... redundant.
Finite and tangible are separate properties, and need not, for the sake of ontological models, be redundant. With regard to distinctions of interaction, the fact that all members of a class overlap with the members of a different class creates no redundancy. As to rectangles and squares, that is a consequence of geometry.
If you were to take a more obscure version of the metaphor, a biological analysis of the eggplant might not apply to a potato, though they are both members of the solanum genus.
the laughably flawed and childishly simple rephrasement, "copying = taking = stealing'
That's an odd characterization, which forces the inappropriate and legally invalid reduction of a term and the insertion of an irrelevant one. Copyright infringement == stealing. Copyright infringement != copying.
This isn't true, because copying =/= taking
I suggest you check a dictionary. Taking includes such actions as acquiring, actively coming into possession of, and assuming control of.
What's truly beautiful here is that you're defeating your own damn argument. If copying != taking, then your statement about "stealing code" is facially invalid. Of course, you're a trolling jackass, so you're probably okay with that.
How loud and intolerant of you.
Precisely the point.
Of course, that's redundant, as anything which is tangible is necessarily finite
A square is a rectangle...
That which is finite is not necessarily tangible. Glad to see you really thought that one through, though.
you can't counter the argument "Copying isn't theft, because theft refers to physical objects of property", by framing the argument in terms of stealing, or taking things, because those also refer to physical objects of property
To steal is to take without authorization. You can steal an idea, a copyright, a book, a lover, a look at confidential files, or any other number of things.
Stealing is not theft, but theft is one form of stealing. Theft is a legal term of art and no more applicable than 'easement'. To rely on that argument is to fail utterly.
Copyright infringement absolutely is stealing, just as distributing GPL code without disclosing modifications is stealing. Neither is theft.
Oh, and for the sake of everyone trying to parse that mess of words: next time you try to sound like an adult, at least try to compose coherent, English sentences.
If you don't like GPL licensed code then don't use it.
I don't have a problem with the GPL, GPL licensed code, or using and contributing as required by the GPL. That isn't the issue, and you know it.
Nobody writing GPL code is forcing anyone to use it.
That's just plain wrong. GPL zealots are the loudest, most intolerant people in the software industry. They condemn proprietary licenses entirely, and they brow-beat all the other groups advancing contrary licenses (MIT, BSD, CC). A vocal minority has turned it into a holy war, and anyone who doesn't agree with them doesn't "get" it, because the GPL is the One True Way. Enough is enough--I'm done tolerating the intolerant, superior, false crap.
You can't take a Microsoft product and do what you want with it... With Microsoft you have to give money, with the GPL you give away code
Exactly! You're trading one set of restrictions for another. The GPL isn't "free", it's just different.
stop calling people names because you can't steal their code
Ah, and there we come to another pet peeve, because many of these same outspoken zealots are the ones that ignorantly spam Slashdot in copyright threads that copyright infringement isn't stealing (it is, and when it's pointed out to them, they build up their straw men about the property crime theft--despite frequent correction that stealing is not theft and stealing is merely the act of taking something to which you are not entitled, without any need for it to be finite, tangible, or valuable).
The developer releasing under the GPL would still have their code, and full control of it. What he wouldn't have is the third party's code, but you can't steal your own code.
Finally, if the code were truly given away and truly free, there would be nothing to steal.
The average of the medians of the five broadcast networks is 50 (i.e. each network had a respective median age of 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 [made-up numbers], which averages to 50). There is nothing wrong with TFA.
And when I donate source code I donate it with the intention that any end user be allowed to modify and run it, wherever or on whatever they recieved that code from. If Tivo wants to prevent the end user from doing that they have the free choice to not use my code.
Your code isn't "donated"--you're still profiting from it, you're just not charging for it. End users would be able to use your code wherever and whenever they wanted. What you're really saying is that you want access to Tivo's code in exchange for giving them yours for free.
That's not intellectual freedom. That's cross-licensing. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't hide behind a bullshit philosophy and claims of "freedom". Tivo isn't preventing the end user from seeing, having, modifying, using, or pissing on your code, and your argument is just a pile of steaming dung.
If Tivo's abuse of the intent of GPL prevents products _better_ than Tivo from appearing, I'd say that's a Bad Thing.
Tivo hasn't abused anything. No one is "prevented" from doing something better than Tivo. They have access to the same starting point that Tivo had. If they really had the skill to outperform them, they wouldn't need the handicap. They'd write better code, and people would buy their product and not Tivo's.
They do, however, have a problem with someone else harming others.
Then why do they do it? GPL zealots are rabid, angry, superior assholes who give the open source movement as a whole a bad name. They're hell-bent on pushing their own greedy restrictions down the throats of everyone, while mocking other approaches, all in the name of "freedom" (where freedom is selectively defined).
Free software is the epitome of free market economics; it's the enforcement of absolute competition.
no strings attached. The GPL patently falls outside this category. They are tying the hands of would-be competitors by limiting their options. You'd have to be deluded to believe otherwise. The GPL builds on the same state-protected monopoly rights and would be utterly unenforceable without them.
Absolute competition means accepting the possibility that someone will abuse your hospitality and generosity. That is why a truly free market does not work, unless you ignore the environment, human health, and business survival.
DVDs: ~$15-20. BD: ~$25-30. Yes, that's a significant expense.
Netflix has over 55 million discs in its warehouse(s), though how many are BD is not clear. They certainly do not pay more than retail for discs, though the extent of their discount and any independent licensing agreements they've reached with studios are obviously trade secrets.
Natural rights don't have anything to do with anything.
Creators do indeed have a fundamental right to that which they create, however, and that includes nothing short of complete dominion.
Calling it a restraint on trade is a clever, but ultimately ineffective, approach. Any property right is by definition a restraint on trade. Further, the implication that trade should be wholly unrestrained is ipso facto invalid. Just look at what happens to water quality.
Why? Each disc is more expensive on the whole, and the number of users is smaller. The cost of providing the service, per user, is considerably higher for BD customers than for DVD customers, and since the DVD customers can't use the BD, why should they have to subsidize those of us wanting BD titles?
If it's just an extra buck or two per month, it'll be more than reasonable. Remember that prices of BD went up after HD-DVD crapped out, and that with the economy the way it is, BD uptake hasn't exactly exploded. Hell, HDTV penetration isn't even all that impressive yet, nationwide.
Why should I buy a product instead of hiring someone to modify a nearly-done free product for me?
For the same reasons you buy anything as opposed to hiring someone to make it.
1. It's cheaper.
2. It's ready now, off the shelf.
3. It's convenient--you don't have to draw up labor contracts or develop specs.
4. You don't care, in that particular situation, how it works or that it's the perfectly suited product. You just want it to perform a function and move on with your life.
Software is a tool. It is not a movement. Trying to "kill" alternatives is just as greedy and absurd as the people you malign. If they want to release their product a different way, let them. You don't have to do it the same way. Open source is not always the answer.
Your contention is interesting, but not supported by reality. The release of GPL code is not confined in any way to "the project", nor does the development of closed-off modifications have any impact on the fulfillment of the goal. Lack of progress is not the same thing as detriment.
Even if the original, unmodified code is still present, the new code is competing in the same environment, and people in the project has no longer access to the enhancements - they must rebuild it for themselves. That is what freedom means. If you are releasing something into the wild for free, you must accept the possibility that someone will take it and improve it without sharing those improvements with you. The net result is that the free rider benefited from the community work, and now the community is left worse than it began. The community is no worse off. It simply isn't the recipient of benefits. Calling the licensee a "free rider" has the exact effect of proving that the license isn't about freedom at all, but merely a different sort of expectation of profit. The GPL was NEVER intended for that purpose. And thus it is not truly free, in any sense of the word. Excited zealotry notwithstanding, it's exactly as restrictive as a proprietary license, just in different ways to different people. Now that was pure trolling. GPL supporters are ALL for copyright enforcement You can't possibly say that with a straight face. Some of the biggest Slashdot GPL astroturfers are also vocal about copyright infringement not being a detriment, because those people never intended to pay for the product, ergo it is not a "lost sale", or that there is no loss because the creator still has everything he had to begin with (nevermind that that is demonstrably false, because the only thing the creator had was exclusivity, and that property has been taken without intent to return).That's not to say that there aren't those with a sane approach to the issue, but many of the posters in this thread are not among them.
GPL advocacy crosses into demonstrably false zealotry when it proclaims to be the "freest" license. It simply is not even close. There's nothing wrong with the GPL or its goals, but there is no need to pretend it is something it isn't. The need to establish that false dichotomy seems to be preprogrammed into its supporters, though, because they can't seem to function without declaring proprietary licenses evil and theirs the Holy Lord of Software Licensing.
The right tool for the right job. No software developer should begrudge any other the right to license their hard work and well-deserved property rights in the manner they see fit and to the extent they see fit. Trying to force GPL down everyone's throats is simply another kind of greed, no more or less noble than the peddlers of closed-source licenses.
The very real restriction is that someone is giving you code, not for free, but with the attached strings that if you want to improve the code and you want to share that product with others, you have to share your code as well. This is offensive and no more or less free than proprietary software.
Continuing to share that which was already freely distributed is one thing; parasitically leeching your own efforts so that you, the creator, no longer have a say...well that's totally different.
In terms of the freedom of all users as a collective, rather than just the subset of users that want to insert DRM to restrict the freedom of all users, there is no Freer licence than the GPL. Horseshit. That's a packaged phrase from the RMS army, but it's not true.The freest license most people are conversant in is the BSD license in some ways (MIT also has some interesting consequences).
The GPL just swings the pendulum the other way. If proprietary licenses are all about the developers, the GPL is all about the users. Neither generalization is strictly true, but you people complain about closed-source licenses without tolerating the exact same complaints in your holy GPL. Frankly, the GPL isn't free at all.
If it were truly a free release, a person could do anything s/he wanted with that code, including making internal improvements and releasing it under a proprietary license. That has no effect on the original, open code. It still exists. It's still available to anyone who wants it. There's no harm if the original intent was to release "free" code--if you have an expectation of profit, even if it's in the form of gaining free access to the work of another, it's not free. Reciprocity is an economically and intellectually binding force, neither free in spirit nor in price.
The delicious hypocrisy is that GPL zealots are also often the loudest preachers of "copyright infringement doesn't hurt anyone"--and yet, if you dare close off your GPL improvements, they cry havoc.
It's just a street-facing house with an open door.
Honestly, it's not that difficult to grasp. An open network is no different than a house with an open door. It is not a business, nor is it like a business. It is not giving you permission by assigning an internal IP to your machine; the network has zero authority to grant or deny legal permission to use.
LTE is UMTS.
Well, one possible explanation is that DSL required replacement of older telephone wiring from junctions to homes. It required significant overhaul to main backbone lines in a large number of cities. It required new technology at each service office, and it was severely range-limited. Then, even after all of that, line filters were needed to be connected within homes to allow voice telephones to function at the same time.
Cable, on the other hand, required new hardware at central offices, a fraction of the number required for DSL.
Cable companies were able to provide broadband service to more customers while simultaneously spending less money (both per-subscriber and overall) and offering greater peak bandwidth. Cable was far more successful in suburbia, and it was cheaper to deploy in urban locales. Unfortunately, they squandered their infrastructure head start, and are now losing the scalability race. Comcast in the Bay Area just recently (finally!) launched a handful of sorely-missed HD channels, but they still don't have anywhere near the satellite offerings, and they're now triple-packing most of them, so the picture quality has decreased significantly, which previously was their advantage over satellite. The DSL providers and Verizon are both pumping out fiber and providing packet-based, rather than broadcast-based, television technology, and the cable companies are screwed--except that fiber deployment is slow and expensive.
If the cable companies had any sense, they'd move their entire distribution method to On Demand, instead of pumping out all the channels, all the time, freeing up bandwidth for other services while they start replacing their infrastructure as well. The digital transition was a good opportunity for them to do just that, but they watched that pitch sail by, too.
Microsoft is free to set whatever checkboxes it wants. That's not bundling--it's not like the data has been downloaded yet or that it comes along without permission. It's not anticompetitive. I don't recall any criticizing Microsoft specifically for the practice of default installations--I recall criticism for not having a checkbox to unmark in the first place
For me, no. For millions of uneducated end users, it is. Get it? No. If you're so stupid that you can't click a box to determine whether or not you want to install a piece of software, you have no business on a computer. It's not a configuration option. You're not deciding whether to include a program feature, or trying to decipher some obscure technical term in your media player's configuration screen.I don't disagree that it's an annoying practice, regardless of who does it, but it's one that would stop overnight if people actually paid attention to what they're doing. There's no value in it if people take the third of a second to look at what they're clicking on. It's not really any different than a popup message during installation that says, "Would you like to try Safari today?" with brainless-human-drone just tapping the enter key when anything pops up on screen.
If it just started installing one day (e.g. Windows spyware tool on automatic update systems), that would be one thing. But if software presents a screen, telling you exactly what it's going to do if you click the button and giving you the opportunity to change that default if you don't like it, then you're just an idiot for clicking that button.
It's the same deal with malware. On Linux and OS X, asking for an administrator password isn't really for the authentication (for the most part), it's an interruption in the mindless "next" and "OK" clicking done by computer users. It causes people to have to reach out to their keyboard and hopefully in that moment, their brain comes out of standby and says, "Hey! Wait a minute! What am I doing?"
And definitive use in the law, as well. Merriam-Webster is not a particularly accurate, thorough, or disciplined publication. It's fine as a casual reference, but so is Dictionary.com, American Heritage, and Webster's (the REAL Webster's).
The OED is the English language resource, at least in terms of the high water mark for scholarship. It is that disciplined scholarship that leads to its criticism, however. Precise word choice, where it is important, should not be blunted by an overly populist dictionary with demonstrably lower levels of academic scholarship and fidelity.
If the term has become such a point of contention that the precise dictionary definition is required, then OED is the ultimate arbiter. If you're not squabbling over technicalities and just want the basic gist, then any of the other reputable dictionaries, including M-W, are acceptable. Stopping at M-W, on the other hand, is like saying an encyclopedia is a sufficient technical resource. Encyclopedias and dictionaries are by their nature limited. The OED is unquestionably the most detailed English dictionary, and no other resource can make a contrary claim with any real credibility. That's what makes it valuable in academic, technical, and legal research.
The hell they aren't!
During business hours, you're a business invitee to the property. You have tacit permission to enter, but the owner can still ask you to leave.
There is no such license to enter private property. If the owner hasn't expressly authorized your presence, you're trespassing.
The only way these are similar is that if you use an unsecured wifi network, you must take responsibility for the fact that you may be trespassing. Locked or unlocked, it's still their network. You don't get to enter the house just because the door's open. And before anyone complains about "unsolicited radio waves"--guess what? Radio waves aren't actionable as a nuisance, nor are scents (apart from those indicative of health code violations), nor are the damn photons flying into your eyes. If you want to be certain you're not doing anything improper, seek permission and don't use unsecured networks unless you know you've been authorized. Otherwise, you bear the risk of being at fault for unauthorized access, just like when you go berrypicking in the woods.
In 1980, when most of these homes were last mortgaged, they were $250k. Hence the worthlessness of that statistic. Median mortgage of a 2008 purchase in the area is around $7000/month.
PC = Percolation Cartridge, I assume?
If there's not a slider lever in the tray to accept Darjeeling media, I'm afraid it will never take off in the UK, dooming these machines to the same fate as A4-incompatible printers.