Do you have examples? He started with a government healthcare option, but backed off because he didn't have the votes from even within his own party. He started off with letting the tax cuts for the rich expire, but then relented as tax cuts for others were going to expire. For the debt ceiling, Obama pushed hard to raise taxes while reducing spending.
I think people just have unrealistic expectations when: 1) The Republican party has adopted the position that they want him to fail, regardless of the cost to the country. 2) He can fight all he wants, but he's not a dictator, and if the Republicans are going to dig their heels in, he can't force their hand.
I think he's done a reasonable job under the circumstances.
I think I'll skip going around the barn again on your definition of credit versus mine
It wasn't mine, I quoted from a dictionary, and it is directly applicable to what we were talking about. All you are doing is refusing to acknowledge the definition, state why it doesn't apply, or provide a reference of your own.
The synonymous event to a check is when the merchant bank transfers the money from their account to the seller during the settlement.
When I say it's a synonymous step, I mean it's the same time you pay the merchant -- either by check, credit card, or what have you.
Charging your card is requesting that transfer, but it's the credit card issuer that makes the (criminally prosecutable) statement that they have the funds available when they approve it.
And the reason why it's a credit from the card issuer to you and not a float is for exactly the reason you describe. The float in this case is the time it takes to transfer money from the card issuer to the merchant. What you have latched onto, the terms of the loan from American Express to the consumer, has nothing to do with float and everything to do with credit.
That's why you can never face fraud charges for the money transfer like you can with a check, where you personally state with your check that the funds are available.
Which is what I said all along, because the card issuer has given you a short-term loan. It doesn't matter if it's paid off in 30 days or not, it's still a loan and the only reason why they gave it to you in the first place was because they deemed you were worth the credit risk.
You're not allowed to change the definition of a word to make your argument work.
You're the one changing definitions.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/credit : "9. a. An arrangement for deferred payment of a loan or purchase: a store that offers credit; bought my stereo on credit. b. The terms governing such an arrangement: low prices and easy credit. c. The time allowed for deferred payment: an automatic 30-day credit on all orders."
The check is your explicit statement that you have the money in the bank, and the float is the time it takes to go through the system. When you charge your American Express card, they are giving you a short-term loan. Your ability to call on that loan at any time is credit. It's that simple.
Moreover, the act of writing a bad check and the debt that it represents are separate things in the court (check fraud is a crime but debt is a civil matter), so even while you'd face criminal charges for purposely writing a bad check, you'd still have to handle the debt owed by some means and that's exactly the same as not paying a bill to AmEx for the card.
But it's more than just not paying the bill. Charging your card and writing a check are synonymous steps in the process, but you'll never be charged with a crime for making an American Express charge that you didn't have the money for, because you never claimed to have the money. It's a loan and you can only go into debt.
Misrepresenting that you have the money when writing a check is fraud. Of course, once you have committed fraud and not actually given payment, you are in debt, too.
If Obama had taken the fight to the republicans would he have actually won?
I don't get this sentiment. What did people expect him to do? Challenge them to pistols at dawn? He spent countless hours fighting against the Republicans. He won on some issues, lost on others. That's compromise, and it's the same thing Clinton did to get things done.
It has everything to do with copyright, as that's the claim being used to take it down.
If the OpenDDR project was hosted in the European Union, it would not have had the hosting pulled in this way - regardless of the European Database Directive.
Maybe, maybe not. ISPs can respond to complaints. Even if they left it up, the parties involved can be sued, just like in the US, which is the real problem. The DMCA can be responded to and within a couple of weeks the data should be back up. It's not the big deal you are making it out to be.
What's really ridiculous is taking these mythologies seriously at all, and then arguing over the meaning of a particular word that was written down thousands of years ago by some storyteller, who got it from some other storyteller, and so on.
And doing this while claiming that it's religious truth, but all the other origin stories from around the globe and throughout history are false. I guess it was just too much trouble for God to get the same story to all people for all of history. Or maybe it was just more fun to do it in Game of Thrones fashion.
And others have the right to try and dispel that magical thinking. If people want to go around preaching that crap, I find it completely justified to counter it.
While not hosted at sourceforge, the Linux kernel tarballs and trees contain proprietary data different from the kernel license too, for another example. Firmware blobs are bundled for convenience.
Yes, and these binary blobs have been a source of contention for years. It took a while, but the Debian distro finally moved them out because they are more serious about open source. Linus is more slack about the issue.
I do accept the behaviour of say, Sauerbraten for an example affecting me, that has content in the archive that's not under the same license as the source, not because I advocate non free content, but because I don't want to go and download the game data separately from the source code I compile.
Which speaks to my point. You think of the game as a complete unit, and as a complete unit, it is not open source. Users of the game need the proprietary parts, not just a naked engine.
Don't host open source projects on sites that are subject to US jurisdiction
Actually, the situation might be worse elsewhere, because the US in general doesn't allow you to copyright databases unless there's some creative element, unlike the European Database Directive.
Also, a DMCA takedown can easily be responded to, and if it's frivolous, you can sue for damages.
Is sourceforge going to remove open source games as well?
I don't know, but they should if they aren't really open source.
They quite often have data (e.g. artwork, textures, sounds etc.) that is licensed differently than the source code. For convenience, the data is provided in the same bundle yet there may be restrictions on how you can use and distribute that data, if you read the license.
I'm really sick of this dilution of open source. If, "for convenience", you make a "bundle" to distribute a complete game, then unless the whole game is open source, it isn't open source. You can claim the engine is open source, but to say the whole game is, that's lying for marketing purposes.
Everybody wants to fly under the open source banner to get the warm fuzzies and marketing buzz, but then they want to add in the proprietary parts to get exclusive benefits. You wouldn't accept this behavior from Microsoft.
The next question to ask is, "Am I legally required to let you search me?"
What if they say, "No, but you aren't getting on the plane and have to leave the airport if you don't." Would you, or would you not, give consent? I think it's pretty obvious that if you're already going through the scanners voluntarily, that you would.
Remember what the starting statement was, "Never consent to a search."
I find your distinction between voluntarily going through a scanner and having your bag checked versus being given consent when asked a distinction without a difference. By willingly going through the scanners and bag searchers, you are consenting.
By the same reasoning, I think it's pretty obvious that after asking "Why?" and they told you it was to search for stuff, you would consent so that you could get to where you were going to.
Are you saying that if a TSA agent came up to you at the airport and asked if they could search your carry-on, you would say no? That's what happened to me the first time I flew, and this was before 9/11. Of course I didn't say no, as I was on a trip with my family and wanted to get to where I was going.
I see this sentiment a lot, but it's misguided. Osama and his al-Qaeda buddies don't give a shit about our freedoms. That was just Bush lying to the American people about why they attacked us.
What they really hate is our foreign policy that interferes with their plans to install Islamic governments in their sphere of influence. It's kind of like a Monroe Doctrine for Islamists.
Everybody says they are the "good guys". Who comes right out and says they are evil? The world isn't black and white, anyways, though the fight against Hitler and his dictator allies was about as black and white as it gets.
Given the nearly ubiquitous nature of Internet today, the requirement to broadcast over EM waves to get your voice heard is not there. I don't care what kind of network you have, large numbers of people are going to gravitate to a few providers. Your utopian ideal doesn't exist.
Ron Paul represents the libertarians. His electoral base is a mix of independent farmers and suburbanites who believe they don't depend on the government for anything.
You're missing out on voters who are tired of the war on drugs and/or tired of the foreign wars.
I care when it's gotten to the point where there is literally nothing to watch that doesn't leave me feeling disgusted.
Oh really? I've enjoyed shows like "The Universe" on the History Channel, "Nova" and "Frontline" on PBS, and "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central. There are also lots of fictional shows that rise above the level of reality TV, but then again, you seem to have this personal standard that you think should apply to everybody else.
Wipe it out and replace it with something intelligent.
Fuck off, fascist. How about you create a show that you think people will like? It's easy to throw stones at people who have to stay in business and get ratings while sitting on your ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have examples? He started with a government healthcare option, but backed off because he didn't have the votes from even within his own party. He started off with letting the tax cuts for the rich expire, but then relented as tax cuts for others were going to expire. For the debt ceiling, Obama pushed hard to raise taxes while reducing spending.
I think people just have unrealistic expectations when: 1) The Republican party has adopted the position that they want him to fail, regardless of the cost to the country. 2) He can fight all he wants, but he's not a dictator, and if the Republicans are going to dig their heels in, he can't force their hand.
I think he's done a reasonable job under the circumstances.
On the backend Java is really good for portability. Really good. It kinda sucks for the GUI though.
I think I'll skip going around the barn again on your definition of credit versus mine
It wasn't mine, I quoted from a dictionary, and it is directly applicable to what we were talking about. All you are doing is refusing to acknowledge the definition, state why it doesn't apply, or provide a reference of your own.
The synonymous event to a check is when the merchant bank transfers the money from their account to the seller during the settlement.
When I say it's a synonymous step, I mean it's the same time you pay the merchant -- either by check, credit card, or what have you.
Charging your card is requesting that transfer, but it's the credit card issuer that makes the (criminally prosecutable) statement that they have the funds available when they approve it.
And the reason why it's a credit from the card issuer to you and not a float is for exactly the reason you describe. The float in this case is the time it takes to transfer money from the card issuer to the merchant. What you have latched onto, the terms of the loan from American Express to the consumer, has nothing to do with float and everything to do with credit.
That's why you can never face fraud charges for the money transfer like you can with a check, where you personally state with your check that the funds are available.
Which is what I said all along, because the card issuer has given you a short-term loan. It doesn't matter if it's paid off in 30 days or not, it's still a loan and the only reason why they gave it to you in the first place was because they deemed you were worth the credit risk.
Too bad Google licensed their MapReduce patent to Apache Hadoop. It would have been a nice stick to beat up Oracle with.
If giving someone time after the transaction to pay is "short term credit", then why don't they call it a credit card?
Ask the marketing department. I gave dictionary definitions in my other response.
You're not allowed to change the definition of a word to make your argument work.
You're the one changing definitions.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/credit : "9. a. An arrangement for deferred payment of a loan or purchase: a store that offers credit; bought my stereo on credit. b. The terms governing such an arrangement: low prices and easy credit. c. The time allowed for deferred payment: an automatic 30-day credit on all orders."
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/float : "4. A sum of money representing checks that are outstanding."
The check is your explicit statement that you have the money in the bank, and the float is the time it takes to go through the system. When you charge your American Express card, they are giving you a short-term loan. Your ability to call on that loan at any time is credit. It's that simple.
Moreover, the act of writing a bad check and the debt that it represents are separate things in the court (check fraud is a crime but debt is a civil matter), so even while you'd face criminal charges for purposely writing a bad check, you'd still have to handle the debt owed by some means and that's exactly the same as not paying a bill to AmEx for the card.
But it's more than just not paying the bill. Charging your card and writing a check are synonymous steps in the process, but you'll never be charged with a crime for making an American Express charge that you didn't have the money for, because you never claimed to have the money. It's a loan and you can only go into debt.
Misrepresenting that you have the money when writing a check is fraud. Of course, once you have committed fraud and not actually given payment, you are in debt, too.
If Obama had taken the fight to the republicans would he have actually won?
I don't get this sentiment. What did people expect him to do? Challenge them to pistols at dawn? He spent countless hours fighting against the Republicans. He won on some issues, lost on others. That's compromise, and it's the same thing Clinton did to get things done.
This has nothing to do with copyright
It has everything to do with copyright, as that's the claim being used to take it down.
If the OpenDDR project was hosted in the European Union, it would not have had the hosting pulled in this way - regardless of the European Database Directive.
Maybe, maybe not. ISPs can respond to complaints. Even if they left it up, the parties involved can be sued, just like in the US, which is the real problem. The DMCA can be responded to and within a couple of weeks the data should be back up. It's not the big deal you are making it out to be.
Generally arguing politics on Slashdot is the blind screaming at the deaf.
Which are you?
Preventing discrimination based on gender is not forcing morals on anyone.
Affirmative action is reverse discrimination.
On the topic of gay marriage it is ensuring individual liberty.
If you want individual liberty, then get the government out of marriage all together.
A few decades ago, nuclear war seemed like the manifestation of that. We got past that hurdle with civilisation intact.
Actually, we didn't. Sure, the Cold War has mostly ended, but we still have the missiles poised and ready.
How many more inventions like that will there be? How many times can we pass the test?
There's also the threat of something like a superflu.
What's really ridiculous is taking these mythologies seriously at all, and then arguing over the meaning of a particular word that was written down thousands of years ago by some storyteller, who got it from some other storyteller, and so on.
And doing this while claiming that it's religious truth, but all the other origin stories from around the globe and throughout history are false. I guess it was just too much trouble for God to get the same story to all people for all of history. Or maybe it was just more fun to do it in Game of Thrones fashion.
they have the right engage in magical thinking
And others have the right to try and dispel that magical thinking. If people want to go around preaching that crap, I find it completely justified to counter it.
While not hosted at sourceforge, the Linux kernel tarballs and trees contain proprietary data different from the kernel license too, for another example. Firmware blobs are bundled for convenience.
Yes, and these binary blobs have been a source of contention for years. It took a while, but the Debian distro finally moved them out because they are more serious about open source. Linus is more slack about the issue.
I do accept the behaviour of say, Sauerbraten for an example affecting me, that has content in the archive that's not under the same license as the source, not because I advocate non free content, but because I don't want to go and download the game data separately from the source code I compile.
Which speaks to my point. You think of the game as a complete unit, and as a complete unit, it is not open source. Users of the game need the proprietary parts, not just a naked engine.
Don't host open source projects on sites that are subject to US jurisdiction
Actually, the situation might be worse elsewhere, because the US in general doesn't allow you to copyright databases unless there's some creative element, unlike the European Database Directive.
Also, a DMCA takedown can easily be responded to, and if it's frivolous, you can sue for damages.
Is sourceforge going to remove open source games as well?
I don't know, but they should if they aren't really open source.
They quite often have data (e.g. artwork, textures, sounds etc.) that is licensed differently than the source code. For convenience, the data is provided in the same bundle yet there may be restrictions on how you can use and distribute that data, if you read the license.
I'm really sick of this dilution of open source. If, "for convenience", you make a "bundle" to distribute a complete game, then unless the whole game is open source, it isn't open source. You can claim the engine is open source, but to say the whole game is, that's lying for marketing purposes.
Everybody wants to fly under the open source banner to get the warm fuzzies and marketing buzz, but then they want to add in the proprietary parts to get exclusive benefits. You wouldn't accept this behavior from Microsoft.
...on a computer you built yourself from raw materials.
The next question to ask is, "Am I legally required to let you search me?"
What if they say, "No, but you aren't getting on the plane and have to leave the airport if you don't." Would you, or would you not, give consent? I think it's pretty obvious that if you're already going through the scanners voluntarily, that you would.
Remember what the starting statement was, "Never consent to a search."
I find your distinction between voluntarily going through a scanner and having your bag checked versus being given consent when asked a distinction without a difference. By willingly going through the scanners and bag searchers, you are consenting.
By the same reasoning, I think it's pretty obvious that after asking "Why?" and they told you it was to search for stuff, you would consent so that you could get to where you were going to.
Are you saying that if a TSA agent came up to you at the airport and asked if they could search your carry-on, you would say no? That's what happened to me the first time I flew, and this was before 9/11. Of course I didn't say no, as I was on a trip with my family and wanted to get to where I was going.
The advice I got repeatedly from lawyers was, "Never consent to a search."
Do you follow this advice when going through the airport?
I see this sentiment a lot, but it's misguided. Osama and his al-Qaeda buddies don't give a shit about our freedoms. That was just Bush lying to the American people about why they attacked us.
What they really hate is our foreign policy that interferes with their plans to install Islamic governments in their sphere of influence. It's kind of like a Monroe Doctrine for Islamists.
Everybody says they are the "good guys". Who comes right out and says they are evil? The world isn't black and white, anyways, though the fight against Hitler and his dictator allies was about as black and white as it gets.
Given the nearly ubiquitous nature of Internet today, the requirement to broadcast over EM waves to get your voice heard is not there. I don't care what kind of network you have, large numbers of people are going to gravitate to a few providers. Your utopian ideal doesn't exist.
Ron Paul represents the libertarians. His electoral base is a mix of independent farmers and suburbanites who believe they don't depend on the government for anything.
You're missing out on voters who are tired of the war on drugs and/or tired of the foreign wars.
I care when it's gotten to the point where there is literally nothing to watch that doesn't leave me feeling disgusted.
Oh really? I've enjoyed shows like "The Universe" on the History Channel, "Nova" and "Frontline" on PBS, and "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central. There are also lots of fictional shows that rise above the level of reality TV, but then again, you seem to have this personal standard that you think should apply to everybody else.
Wipe it out and replace it with something intelligent.
Fuck off, fascist. How about you create a show that you think people will like? It's easy to throw stones at people who have to stay in business and get ratings while sitting on your ass.