It's also as if this were some sort of government petition against grievances about the business expense of dealing with all these robocalls.
Don't you dare bring up a first amendment right that cannot be squashed by claiming that it constitutes "harassment" of a public official to contact them on their office phone. Next you'll be telling me that these calls are expressly authorized by the FCC's own consumer guidance, and I simply refuse to believe it. It's criminal -- some goober on Slashdot can construct a business purpose for it so it must be. I look forward to all paid lobbyists being charged with crimes for placing such calls using similar logic.
It should be noted that NOTHING said before a Grand Jury can be used to bring criminal charges against the speaker. So if you're called to a Grand Jury, and they ask you "Did YOU murder that family?", if you say "Yeah, it was me that did it" then you just got away with murder....
That is not remotely true, says the licensed attorney.
The fifth amendment says that you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. If you fail to assert the fifth amendment and voluntarily answer the question "Did YOU murder that family" in the affirmative to a grand jury, then your goose is pretty much cooked.
- Volatility is COMPLETELY NORMAL and EXPECTED process of adoption of a new distributed currency into a free and open market.
Citation needed.
Fiat is only "stable" due to manipulation to target, see the Fed's own whitepapers on that.
So if you abandon all pretense of manipulation to target, you get volatility. Nice own-goal.
IN FACT, Fiat is extremely volatile when priced in cryptocurrency.
Yes, due to the volatility of the cryptocurrency. Now price either of those in real world goods, like a pizza.
- Blockchain design model itself has NEVER been "hacked". Only the shitware and shitcorps and shitcoins surrounding it has been.
Counterpoint. Unless your "blockchain design model" manages to exclude every cryptocurrency deployed to date.
- NOT your keys, NOT your Cryptocurrency. Read the news... banks get "hacked" ALL THE FUCKING TIME MATE.
Not as frequently as cryptowallets, not without recourse (insurance because thank you state banking laws), and not with the ability to disappear with nary a trace because thank you Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation).
It can't be a sustainable end state for there to be an entirely unfettered space that's utterly beyond law enforcement for criminals to hide...
Like in the memories within their own minds. After all, they both involve "memory!"
Just wait (probably quite a long time, if ever) for technology to be developed that can read memories, and watch the police state roll out the proverbial battering ram.
...The GNU General Public License permits making a modified version and letting the public access it on a server without ever releasing its source code to the public.
The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available to the community....
The person seeing a non-existent "spirit of the GPL" is the one who's not focused.
If you want to argue the spirit of the law, you should look into the intentions of the people who created the law, not the final words that came out.
Fine. The intentions, as stated here 12 years ago:
The GNU General Public License permits making a modified version and letting the public access it on a server without ever releasing its source code to the public. The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available to the community. It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server.
If you picked a non-Affero GPL license, you were warned. You either intended or were willfully blind to the foreseeable result.
If you want to argue the spirit of the law, you should look into the intentions of the people who created the law, not the final words that came out.
I have. You're arguing that Stallman and Moglen made the same mistake not once, but twice, years apart, and after seeing exactly how the GPL v2 operated.
From your own link explaining the four freedoms:
A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: [1] The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Notice that freedoms 0 and 1 are separate from freedoms 2 and 3.
Secondly, it's as if you didn't even read the GPL. Why did you ignore the stated intentions? Right at the top, the intentions are stated.
This part? "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it."
The one that makes distribution optional, and separates the freedom to modify from the freedom to distribute as well?
The stated intention is to make sure the users can share and change free software...
But somehow cloud service providers don't qualify as users.
The intention is clearly that Amazon's users could share and make changes to this hidden code.
It is not. Neither the philosophy nor the preamble nor the license itself demands that anyone distribute their modifications. This has been an open feature ever since the licenses were publicly released. and only now are certain licensors (that have the ability to change their licenses to the Affero GPL but do not) and other members of the community (who oddly enough do not fork the project under the Affero GPL, probably because the fork would be rejected out of hand) seeking to impose additional restrictions.
Therefore you must admit that Amazon is not following the stated intention of the license, they are not following the spirit of the law.
I must not. It is not the stated intention of the license, the very existence of the Affero GPL demonstrates that it is not the intention of the license, and the license certainly is not the law.
If these licensors are violating the "spirit of the GPL," then show me any authority at the FSF that has adopted that accusation as their own. I'll wait...
They aren't following the spirit of the GPL. They are being anti-social: taking from the labors of others, and not contributing back.
The GPLv2 allows you to take from the labors of others without giving back. It's right there in the preamble:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have.
This was not some failure of Stallman and Moglen to consider and incorporate a term into the GPL -- it is an intended feature. The GPLv3 section 2 is even more explicit:
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.
But you're not happy with that. Instead, you invoke a fictional "spirit of the GPL" in order to take away the freedom to change the work unless the recipient meets additional conditions, something that is expressly forbidden by GPLv2 section 6 and GPLv3 section 10:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
and
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.
So no, you are not following the spirit of the GPL. You have decided to unilaterally change the GPL into the AGPL, which it is not and cannot be. MariaDB has decided that now that it has obtained the benefits and usage base afforded by selecting the GPL, it wants to retroactively place its code under AGPL-like terms without consequence. You're both the ones being anti-social by failing to follow through on the principles and promises that you purport to follow. Now go away, hypocrites.
Right there I have a problem with this. The U.S. has no jurisdiction over actions in Iran by a non American company and non American citizens.
Correct.
The U.S. instead has jurisdiction over monetary transfers conducted through the U.S. banking system that were intended to violate U.S. sanctions and completed based upon fraud allegedly committed by the accused when dealing with U.S. banks.
Mr. Gibb-Carsley laid out what had led to her arrest. He said that between 2009 and 2014, Huawei used a Hong Kong company, Skycom Tech, to make transactions in Iran and do business with telecom companies there, in violation of American sanctions. Banks in the United States cleared financial transactions for Huawei, inadvertently doing business with Skycom, he said.
The banks were 'victim institutions' of fraud by Ms. Meng, Mr. Gibb-Carsley said.
Now explain how the U.S. lacks jurisdiction to me once more...
There's a huge difference between writing a $3B check and not sending a $3B invoice in the first place.
Sure there is. The huge difference being that in both cases you have committed $3B to attracting a single business to the exclusion of all the other ways in which that money could be spent.
It is amazing how armchair economists who want something suddenly decide that the concept of "opportunity cost" doesn't exist and suddenly forget that the key word in the concept is "cost."The dead guy with nobel is bringing a reality bazooka.
When you don't invent the term, which was provably in use before the leading lights of the OSI claimed to have coined it, you don't get to define it.
Yes, in fact, you do. The first person to use a term does not obtain a perpetual monopoly concerning its meaning, especially when they put no substantial investment into promoting that meaning. English is a consensus based language, and the consensus has long favored the OSI definition.
Economic profit, which takes opportunity cost into account, tends toward zero in a competitive market.
Oh, lord. Really? The "assume a spherical cow" of economics rears its ugly head yet again. Please, do tell me what percentage of economic activity actually takes place in an competitive market.
A marginal business may have a positive accounting profit, but if you tax part of that profit away you lower the return in investment to the point that it makes more sense to invest somewhere else instead, and the business closes.
And Amazon is a "marginal business"? Guess what, you've just argued for a progressive business taxation system, instead of the current regressive business taxation system where the larger and more profitable a business, the more public benefits and tax abatements it can demand.
Really? Any sanely run corporation must pass on all costs to the customers or eventually go out of business.
Well, since business taxes are levied against profits, not revenue, how do you justify categorizing taxes as a "cost" that must be passed on to consumers rather than a reduction in profits?
You literally said that the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew and one landing slot had "more efficiency" than four engines with two crews and two landing slots.
That has no relation whatsoever to fuel per mile per passenger seat.
So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less.
Airlines are not operating on crew and landing slot efficiency basis. Crew are comparatively cheap. Landing slots are only critical in a hub model, and these days secondary airports are highly used. For the real metric (fuel per mile per passenger seat), the modern twinjets beat the A380.
No. Four engines were initially required for power, then required for collective reliability/failure tolerance for long-haul over water flights. However, four engine pods create substantial additional drag and double your maintenance issues. As power and, especially, reliability have improved, the trend has been toward two very large engines for long haul over water flights. That is a principal reason for the shift from the Boeing 747 to the Boeing 777, which seats about 90% of the amount of passengers (the 777-300 can seat 368) and costs about 35% less per flight hour to operate with roughly equivalent range (+/- 5% depending upon variants being compared). Principal source.
Stress about money can be a useful driver to get off your fat backside and go get a job. We'd all love to sit around all day and just be mailed cheques for doing nothing but thats not how a viable economy works in the real world.
So sorry, but this study does not support that position either.
Mr Simanainen says that while some individuals found work, they were no more likely to do so than a control group of people who weren't given the money. They are still trying to work out exactly why this is, for the final report that will be published in 2020.
That does not say that the participants were less likely to find work, nor that non-participants were more likely to find work.
If they are equally likely to find work and the program is administratively equally or less costly than tested unemployment benefits, then the program still has a net benefit if only due to the psychological aspects.
The amount of fossil fuels burned 200 years ago was negligible. The warming trend in that era was likely caused by variations in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, and changes in ocean circulation.
The amount of non-fossil fuels burned 200 years ago was not negligible. The fuel for steam engines may have been renewable, but it was not renewed. The vegetation removed in cropland conversion wasn't all used as building materials either. Fossil fuel consumption was dwarfed by land use emissions until the second half of the 20th century, while the latter started adding appreciable CO2 to the atmosphere in the second half of the 19th century.
If anything, that falsifies CO2 based global warming because there was warming before there was abnormally high CO2.
Citation needed.
The industrial revolution started between 1760-1840, depending upon whos benchmark you adopt as a starting point Unsurprisingly, the same period includes a marked and sustained uptick in global average CO2 concentration from ~280 ppm. 1850 starts at 285 ppm and it keeps on climbing...
Which country puts religion on passports? * * * But I'd wager the vast majority of nations don't... * * * and I've not seen a Pakistani passport so I legitimately didn't know. Goalposts firmly in place, mofo.
You have a very abnormal understanding of the meaning of "firmly."
I've not seen a Pakistani passport so I legitimately didn't know. Goalposts firmly in place, mofo.
You've just moved them again. Now you must have personally seen a Packistani passport. The link wasn't enough, so I'm sure that a collection of Google results won't meet your standards either.
I take it back. You're not hardly better, you're no better.
Which country puts religion on passports? Maybe Iran? Probably not...
I suspect you've had your edits pulled because you're a racist fuckwit, not because of "the evul libruls."
Pakistan does/did. Was news back in early '00s. India doesn't have the information ON the passport but it is/was required in the forms when getting them.
Good to know, I know some ME nations ask for it on forms too, Israel has it on some ID systems. But I'd wager the vast majority of nations don't...
An admission that you already knew that various countries put religious affiliation on IDs, then moving the goalposts after someone backs up the claim that some countries print religion on passports (e.g., https://blogs.tribune.com.pk/s...).
The AC may be a fuckwit, but you're hardly better.
Finally, he's making the point to those who might care _almost_ as much about their freedom as convenience that, as long as there are so many people willing to trade their freedom for convenience, those who care about such things can piggy-back off of them to get almost the same level of convenience without compromising their location 24/7/365.25. He's right about that as well.
They're not getting that level of convenience from anyone once it becomes known what they think of the people they turn to...
No, I would not. A credit card permits one to purchase something at a fixed price, charges a known interest rate (even if it can adjust within limits), and can be paid off by paying the fixed price and accrued interest at any time of your choosing.
This scheme simply sells a share of your income for what appears to be your entire working life with no buy-back option. You can't even find a publicly traded stock that'll offer those sorts of terms.
"Examples of 'depreciated' In English, many past and present participles of verbs can be used as adjectives. Some of these examples may show the adjective use."
"These estimates do not include capital charges since the applicable scanners currently in use are fully depreciated. From Cambridge English Corpus"
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you dare bring up a first amendment right that cannot be squashed by claiming that it constitutes "harassment" of a public official to contact them on their office phone. Next you'll be telling me that these calls are expressly authorized by the FCC's own consumer guidance, and I simply refuse to believe it. It's criminal -- some goober on Slashdot can construct a business purpose for it so it must be. I look forward to all paid lobbyists being charged with crimes for placing such calls using similar logic.
That is not remotely true, says the licensed attorney.
The fifth amendment says that you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. If you fail to assert the fifth amendment and voluntarily answer the question "Did YOU murder that family" in the affirmative to a grand jury, then your goose is pretty much cooked.
Oh, this is going to be good.
Citation needed.
So if you abandon all pretense of manipulation to target, you get volatility. Nice own-goal.
Yes, due to the volatility of the cryptocurrency. Now price either of those in real world goods, like a pizza.
Counterpoint. Unless your "blockchain design model" manages to exclude every cryptocurrency deployed to date.
Not as frequently as cryptowallets, not without recourse (insurance because thank you state banking laws), and not with the ability to disappear with nary a trace because thank you Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation).
Sounds plenty learned to me.
Like in the memories within their own minds. After all, they both involve "memory!"
Just wait (probably quite a long time, if ever) for technology to be developed that can read memories, and watch the police state roll out the proverbial battering ram.
How is this for clear and focused:
GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 19 November 2007
Premable
The person seeing a non-existent "spirit of the GPL" is the one who's not focused.
Fine. The intentions, as stated here 12 years ago:
If you picked a non-Affero GPL license, you were warned. You either intended or were willfully blind to the foreseeable result.
End of story.
I have. You're arguing that Stallman and Moglen made the same mistake not once, but twice, years apart, and after seeing exactly how the GPL v2 operated.
From your own link explaining the four freedoms:
Notice that freedoms 0 and 1 are separate from freedoms 2 and 3.
This part? "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it."
The one that makes distribution optional, and separates the freedom to modify from the freedom to distribute as well?
But somehow cloud service providers don't qualify as users.
It is not. Neither the philosophy nor the preamble nor the license itself demands that anyone distribute their modifications. This has been an open feature ever since the licenses were publicly released. and only now are certain licensors (that have the ability to change their licenses to the Affero GPL but do not) and other members of the community (who oddly enough do not fork the project under the Affero GPL, probably because the fork would be rejected out of hand) seeking to impose additional restrictions.
I must not. It is not the stated intention of the license, the very existence of the Affero GPL demonstrates that it is not the intention of the license, and the license certainly is not the law.
If these licensors are violating the "spirit of the GPL," then show me any authority at the FSF that has adopted that accusation as their own. I'll wait...
The GPLv2 allows you to take from the labors of others without giving back. It's right there in the preamble:
This was not some failure of Stallman and Moglen to consider and incorporate a term into the GPL -- it is an intended feature. The GPLv3 section 2 is even more explicit:
But you're not happy with that. Instead, you invoke a fictional "spirit of the GPL" in order to take away the freedom to change the work unless the recipient meets additional conditions, something that is expressly forbidden by GPLv2 section 6 and GPLv3 section 10:
and
So no, you are not following the spirit of the GPL. You have decided to unilaterally change the GPL into the AGPL, which it is not and cannot be. MariaDB has decided that now that it has obtained the benefits and usage base afforded by selecting the GPL, it wants to retroactively place its code under AGPL-like terms without consequence. You're both the ones being anti-social by failing to follow through on the principles and promises that you purport to follow. Now go away, hypocrites.
Correct.
The U.S. instead has jurisdiction over monetary transfers conducted through the U.S. banking system that were intended to violate U.S. sanctions and completed based upon fraud allegedly committed by the accused when dealing with U.S. banks.
As reported here
Now explain how the U.S. lacks jurisdiction to me once more...
Sure there is. The huge difference being that in both cases you have committed $3B to attracting a single business to the exclusion of all the other ways in which that money could be spent.
It is amazing how armchair economists who want something suddenly decide that the concept of "opportunity cost" doesn't exist and suddenly forget that the key word in the concept is "cost."The dead guy with nobel is bringing a reality bazooka.
Yes, in fact, you do. The first person to use a term does not obtain a perpetual monopoly concerning its meaning, especially when they put no substantial investment into promoting that meaning. English is a consensus based language, and the consensus has long favored the OSI definition.
You can set yourself on fire over this issue all you wish, but the majority wins the argument, every time.
Oh, lord. Really? The "assume a spherical cow" of economics rears its ugly head yet again. Please, do tell me what percentage of economic activity actually takes place in an competitive market.
And Amazon is a "marginal business"? Guess what, you've just argued for a progressive business taxation system, instead of the current regressive business taxation system where the larger and more profitable a business, the more public benefits and tax abatements it can demand.
Checkmate.
Well, since business taxes are levied against profits, not revenue, how do you justify categorizing taxes as a "cost" that must be passed on to consumers rather than a reduction in profits?
Do tell... I want to hear this one.
You literally said that the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew and one landing slot had "more efficiency" than four engines with two crews and two landing slots.
That has no relation whatsoever to fuel per mile per passenger seat.
Airlines are not operating on crew and landing slot efficiency basis. Crew are comparatively cheap. Landing slots are only critical in a hub model, and these days secondary airports are highly used. For the real metric (fuel per mile per passenger seat), the modern twinjets beat the A380.
link.
The A380 is (was) having order problems. The A350 XWB not so much.
No. Four engines were initially required for power, then required for collective reliability/failure tolerance for long-haul over water flights. However, four engine pods create substantial additional drag and double your maintenance issues. As power and, especially, reliability have improved, the trend has been toward two very large engines for long haul over water flights. That is a principal reason for the shift from the Boeing 747 to the Boeing 777, which seats about 90% of the amount of passengers (the 777-300 can seat 368) and costs about 35% less per flight hour to operate with roughly equivalent range (+/- 5% depending upon variants being compared). Principal source.
So sorry, but this study does not support that position either.
That does not say that the participants were less likely to find work, nor that non-participants were more likely to find work.
If they are equally likely to find work and the program is administratively equally or less costly than tested unemployment benefits, then the program still has a net benefit if only due to the psychological aspects.
The amount of non-fossil fuels burned 200 years ago was not negligible. The fuel for steam engines may have been renewable, but it was not renewed. The vegetation removed in cropland conversion wasn't all used as building materials either. Fossil fuel consumption was dwarfed by land use emissions until the second half of the 20th century, while the latter started adding appreciable CO2 to the atmosphere in the second half of the 19th century.
Citation needed.
The industrial revolution started between 1760-1840, depending upon whos benchmark you adopt as a starting point Unsurprisingly, the same period includes a marked and sustained uptick in global average CO2 concentration from ~280 ppm. 1850 starts at 285 ppm and it keeps on climbing...
You have a very abnormal understanding of the meaning of "firmly."
You've just moved them again. Now you must have personally seen a Packistani passport. The link wasn't enough, so I'm sure that a collection of Google results won't meet your standards either.
I take it back. You're not hardly better, you're no better.
An admission that you already knew that various countries put religious affiliation on IDs, then moving the goalposts after someone backs up the claim that some countries print religion on passports (e.g., https://blogs.tribune.com.pk/s...).
The AC may be a fuckwit, but you're hardly better.
They're not getting that level of convenience from anyone once it becomes known what they think of the people they turn to...
No, I would not. A credit card permits one to purchase something at a fixed price, charges a known interest rate (even if it can adjust within limits), and can be paid off by paying the fixed price and accrued interest at any time of your choosing.
This scheme simply sells a share of your income for what appears to be your entire working life with no buy-back option. You can't even find a publicly traded stock that'll offer those sorts of terms.
Your own source disagrees with you:
"Examples of 'depreciated'
In English, many past and present participles of verbs can be used as adjectives. Some of these examples may show the adjective use."
"These estimates do not include capital charges since the applicable scanners currently in use are fully depreciated.
From Cambridge English Corpus"