Given such a small community of users, I'd say a little vigilante-style "attitude adjustment" could be directly applied to anyone who abuses the system. Kinda interesting how the typical Slashdot perspective changes when a community-owned pipe is shared vs one run by a cable company. Now p2p is "abusing" the system, instead of just using what you paid for. Traffic shaping (the antithesis of net neutrality) is considered a good policy to keep the occasional web surfer happy. Criminal threats can be applied to take care of "abusers".
If you have not noticed, may I remind you that windows have degenerated into a consumer device totally unusable for any computer science education without spending a significant amount of money and effort to install extra software. That's bullshit. There are plenty of free developer tools for Windows that are easy to install and download, including for all the languages you named. Sometimes hacking is even easier on Windows that on Linux. That was certainly the case when I was messing around with Nintendo DS homebrew.
Products would be cheaper without paying for patent rights, but that would prevent invention, wouldn't it? On the whole, I'd say no. You can look at the software industry before there were software patents, and invention happened on a booming scale. Lots of inventors made money from a first-mover advantage. Some just did it for the sheer pleasure and shared their work with others.
CSIRO created the standard in expectation of being able to sell it. Since they are tax-payer funded, they really shouldn't. And if they didn't invent it, somebody else would have, even without patents.
Where's the strong evidence that people won't invent without patents? Even for expensive stuff like drugs, government often provides much of the funding, and then lets the corporations keep the patents for enormous profits.
But, if I am representing this family, CC would be a Defendant in light of all of my posts on this topic. I think I am ethically obligated to pursue that claim. I have to agree with the Slashdot crowd. You lawyers are too damn sue-happy, and give yourself a bad name. I can see Virgin Mobil as being the offending party; they're a big company, and they should know better than to use somebody's image without their consent. Everybody else hasn't done anything deserving of lawsuit. Suing people that don't deserve to be sued is unethical, in the same way that fucking people over just because you're a corporation and want to make profits is unethical.
Where everybody is just "doing their job" by acting like the biggest asshole possible instead of being reasonable leads to a corrupt system.
I've never seen that happen in the UK. To be honest, I've never seen it in the US either, I was just going by a comment I read in the original Slashdot story. Note that in the defendant's blog article, he said he was just walking out the door when asked for a receipt, not waiting in line to be searched. I've seen these droids at the door before, but have never been asked for a recepit.
I don't see how such a policy would help either It probably works like a deterrent, just to raise the bar. At the cost of treating all your customers like a criminal, of course. And maybe in reality it doesn't work at all, who knows.
Instead we have different issues to fight that make this case seem rather unimportant I believe standing up for the little issues creates an atmosphere where standing up for the bigger issues is easier. It might also serve to wake people up, those same people that might be inclined to wait in line to show their receipt and bag contents. Think globally, act locally.
Here's a quote from the original blog article:
"I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to let loss prevention inspect my bag. I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to hand over my driver's license when asked by Officer Arroyo. However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. I am interested in living my life on strong principles and standing up for my rights as a consumer, a U.S. citizen and a human being. Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing. Allowing police officers to see our papers at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused.
I can reluctantly understand having to show a permit to fish, a permit to drive and a permit to carry a weapon. Having to show a permit to exist is a scary idea which I got a strong taste of today."
Instead "the police did no wrong". That's a terrible outcome. Can't you see it? That wasn't the outcome. If they did no wrong the charges would not have been dropped. Even in the article where it was mistakenly reported that the defendant agreed to no wrong-doing, it says "Righi maintained police had no right to ask for a driver's license from a person not driving a car, a contention backed up later by legal experts."
I already stated I wished he had held out for a formal apology, but the government didn't come out squeaky clean, either. And just because this guy didn't hold out doesn't mean our rights are worthless, because other people have held out and won.
Don't forget that we ALSO have the precedent of Boston seriously overreacting with the Mooninites, which is why I mentioned it. That can also work against her. She should know the environment and realize that some homebrew electronics that could easily be mistaken for an IED should not be worn on her shirt at any airport, let alone Logan airport. It's quite possible she did so knowing full well that it might be mistaken for a bomb. In fact, it seems the most obvious answer. College kids doing foolish things and making political statements? Gee, that never happens.
Who fucking cares if one of your posts gets downmodded, anyways? And yes, it's common knowledge you can almost always avoid a downmod by saying "I'll know I'll get downmodded for this", or similar. It's just a really pussy thing to do.
I challenge you to do what he did then. next time you are in a store and they ask to see the contents of your bag, refuse. Not the original poster, but I certainly will. It's nice to know your rights. Look at how people wait in line to be searched before they leave the store. Insanity. It's nice that somebody like this stands up to show us what are actual rights are, and what bullshit we should absolutely not stand for.
Or go into an airport with harmless electronics sewn onto your clothing holding a lump of clay. That's a completely different issue. The intent there was to give the appearance of a bomb. This person was just going about his business.
he was totally irresponsible to his family and daughter It was his sister, not daughter, and what harm was actually done to her? It should be a good civic lesson, if anything, and she should be proud of her brother. How willing are you to compromise yourself so that you don't inconvenience your family?
All that society got from this case was that you have rights, but you'd better not enforce them because you'll be fucked in the ass by the cops and government. But the next time somebody asserts their rights it will be easier. Precedence is important in these things. It's really too bad he didn't demand a formal apology, but oh well, he certainly fought more than I ever have, and it really is lame to have people like you giving this guy shit.
Why is this modded down? It wasn't modded down, as far as I can tell. Anonymous Cowards start at 0 points. Your user id is much lower than mine -- that is, you should know better.
they're basically a boutique offering an extremely narrow range of products, virtually all of which have been rendered worthless by the latest leak They have more than just the tools. They have the experience, infrastructure, and business contacts in place. Also, the technology is a cat and mouse game, so the tools are constantly adapted. A one-time leak isn't the end of the world.
I'd think having all their email exposed is the biggest threat, as their method of operating may be found to be illegal.
A government cannot effectively use lethal weapons on its own population in any widespread way, because those citizens make the state function. Not a student of history, are you?
Within three years I was consuming about 6-8 liters per day. Umm. Ok. Err, right. So. Ok ok ok. All right, I appreciate that in huge quantities that Aspartame may cause problems, but in huge quantities nearly anything may cause problems. I'd have to say you brought this on yourself, and most people shouldn't be concerned about moderate consumption.
However it is interesting that (AFAIK) no one has tried this sort of public search using satellite images before. The search for Jim Gray is a precursor to this. They used a U2 plane instead of satellite images. The Amazon Turk was also used.
Idiots. They're not idiots. They're fraudsters. And you got taken. Don't purchase products because of the rebate price. Too much hassle, and just encourages fraud. If they really want to mark down the price, they can do so at the register, not via some mail-in bullshit.
From a BSD point of view, it seems like complete nonsense to think you could just selectively delete the license. There are three licenses involved. The BSD license, the GPL, and a meta-license that says "pick one". The BSD view doesn't apply if you pick the GPL. The big question is can you get rid of the licenses that don't apply once you pick one?
Let's say that you must keep the license whole, and you include some source under the license into a GPL project. So clearly you are distributing under the GPL. Then somebody comes along and makes a substantial change to the source, and distributes his changes. What license do his changes fall under? It shouldn't be the meta-license, because that's not GPL. So he made his changes under the GPL. Can the BSD folks now use his changes? It would seem not, because they were made under the GPL. So in that case, wouldn't it be clearer to just remove the extraneous licenses?
Anyways thanks for the response, and I agree, this dual licensed GNU/BSD thing seems very muddled. Yes, it's quite a mess.
Tell me when does GTA try to convince you that a real life of stealing cars and running from the police would be awesome? Clearly the game glamourizes violence and crime. You are rewarded for both. It's the whole point of the game.
But the connection is there, a real undeniable connection, between the game and reality, and that's why this isn't the same as GTA. It's the same thing. Criminal gangs, hookers, reckless driving, and sniper rifles exist in real life. So does the army. You've already admitted some cross-over after playing GTA yourself. That you're trying to make a big distinction where there is none speaks more about your biases than anything else.
Did you know what situations any of them were in? I personally knew two who had plenty of savings and were highly skilled (no kids, either). They didn't like the idea of testing at all, but they valued their jobs more. Several people told me they respected me for what I was doing, but said they had kids to worry about. Well, I don't think kids would go starving (food stamps), and I really doubt all these people were living on the edge.
Did potential employers hold your principles against you? Turns out I never had to find out. The policy was announced at a company meeting as something that was going to happen. I made it know that I'd resign when the policy went into place. The policy was never put into place, and the idea faded away... I was a respected employee there, and I'm pretty sure my stance caused them to rethink it.
Only someone who has never had any trouble finding work would have an attitude like yours. I worked in an office full of privileged people, in that the pay was high and it was likely the majority of these people were not in any danger of starving should they lose their jobs. They were also skilled, and had the abilities to find other jobs.
Yet when the company decided that drug testing would be mandatory, people weren't happy, but nobody spoke up. I was the only one who decided to resign. People just didn't have the fortitude to say "No".
So the problem isn't really just people on the edge. It's just in general that people are sheep who value stability over human ideals.
"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send." What does it mean to "be liberal"? Just how far out of the spec do you have to push your software?
The problem with this principle is that it leads to an ill-defined, de-facto specification that gets harder and harder to implement. Just look at the HTML mess and crap like "quirks" mode. It would be much better if broken software failed fast. Or the spec itself could be designed to be robust, but in a well defined way instead of giving nebulous advice like "be liberal".
Unfortunately, market forces tend to dictate that you work around crap so that your software is as compatible as possible, leading to the downward spiral.
Unless the meta-license says you can remove one. "Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation."
Depending on your view, that may give permission to remove any non-GPL licenses -- it doesn't say "GPL with this dual license attached". The BSD license says you may not remove the license. The meta-license does not, and explicitly gives you permission to re-license the software "Alternatively / under the terms".
In fact, the terms of GPLv2 do not allow you to attach additional restrictions, so saying you couldn't remove the BSD and meta-license means you couldn't put it under the GPL.
That's my opinion, it makes more sense than your opinion, but I don't know (from a legal standpoint) which is the correct one. Of course we all think are opinions make more sense than the other guy's. I think the issue is very muddled, and either side can make rational claims. Usually then the best way forward is to make the license clearer.
Understanding is a mental, not physical process. You are assuming that they are independent, when in fact there is lots of evidence that mental processes depend on physical processes. There are drugs to alter your consciousness, physical damage to your brain can cause mental damage, and there are experiments where people's thoughts have been maninpulated by direct electrical stimulation (these people were undergoing brain surgery).
That of course would be a form of creationism, much reviled here on/. Because it doesn't explain anything or offer any evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's the strong evidence that people won't invent without patents? Even for expensive stuff like drugs, government often provides much of the funding, and then lets the corporations keep the patents for enormous profits.
Where everybody is just "doing their job" by acting like the biggest asshole possible instead of being reasonable leads to a corrupt system.
Here's a quote from the original blog article:
"I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to let loss prevention inspect my bag. I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to hand over my driver's license when asked by Officer Arroyo. However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. I am interested in living my life on strong principles and standing up for my rights as a consumer, a U.S. citizen and a human being. Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing. Allowing police officers to see our papers at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused.
I can reluctantly understand having to show a permit to fish, a permit to drive and a permit to carry a weapon. Having to show a permit to exist is a scary idea which I got a strong taste of today." Instead "the police did no wrong". That's a terrible outcome. Can't you see it? That wasn't the outcome. If they did no wrong the charges would not have been dropped. Even in the article where it was mistakenly reported that the defendant agreed to no wrong-doing, it says "Righi maintained police had no right to ask for a driver's license from a person not driving a car, a contention backed up later by legal experts."
I already stated I wished he had held out for a formal apology, but the government didn't come out squeaky clean, either. And just because this guy didn't hold out doesn't mean our rights are worthless, because other people have held out and won.
I see dead people.
Who fucking cares if one of your posts gets downmodded, anyways? And yes, it's common knowledge you can almost always avoid a downmod by saying "I'll know I'll get downmodded for this", or similar. It's just a really pussy thing to do.
I'd think having all their email exposed is the biggest threat, as their method of operating may be found to be illegal.
Wow, that's some serious Enemy of the State analysis :)
It comes out right if you use 24 (12*2) instead of 26:
2,916.67 * 24 = 70,000.08
Let's say that you must keep the license whole, and you include some source under the license into a GPL project. So clearly you are distributing under the GPL. Then somebody comes along and makes a substantial change to the source, and distributes his changes. What license do his changes fall under? It shouldn't be the meta-license, because that's not GPL. So he made his changes under the GPL. Can the BSD folks now use his changes? It would seem not, because they were made under the GPL. So in that case, wouldn't it be clearer to just remove the extraneous licenses? Anyways thanks for the response, and I agree, this dual licensed GNU/BSD thing seems very muddled. Yes, it's quite a mess.
Yet when the company decided that drug testing would be mandatory, people weren't happy, but nobody spoke up. I was the only one who decided to resign. People just didn't have the fortitude to say "No".
So the problem isn't really just people on the edge. It's just in general that people are sheep who value stability over human ideals.
The problem with this principle is that it leads to an ill-defined, de-facto specification that gets harder and harder to implement. Just look at the HTML mess and crap like "quirks" mode. It would be much better if broken software failed fast. Or the spec itself could be designed to be robust, but in a well defined way instead of giving nebulous advice like "be liberal".
Unfortunately, market forces tend to dictate that you work around crap so that your software is as compatible as possible, leading to the downward spiral.
Depending on your view, that may give permission to remove any non-GPL licenses -- it doesn't say "GPL with this dual license attached". The BSD license says you may not remove the license. The meta-license does not, and explicitly gives you permission to re-license the software "Alternatively / under the terms".
In fact, the terms of GPLv2 do not allow you to attach additional restrictions, so saying you couldn't remove the BSD and meta-license means you couldn't put it under the GPL. That's my opinion, it makes more sense than your opinion, but I don't know (from a legal standpoint) which is the correct one. Of course we all think are opinions make more sense than the other guy's. I think the issue is very muddled, and either side can make rational claims. Usually then the best way forward is to make the license clearer.