Yes, Farrakhan has said some crazy, stupid, hateful things, but that's about where the equivalence ends.
Yes, Farrakhan has, like "white people deserve to die". He also interfered into the investigation of a murdered policeman, threatening riots.
But hey, it's totally fine that the Congressional Black Caucus and Obama sought his endorsements. Because "the Klan".
The KKK, an organization to which David Duke belongs, has a very long history of systemic violence, lynching, and intimidation.
Duke doesn't belong to the Klan. He left it a long time ago. Furthermore, did he ever advocate for violence while at the Klan? This is what Wikipedia has to say about him during his time there:
"In 1974, Duke founded the Louisiana-based Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (KKKK), shortly after graduating from LSU.[98] He became Grand Wizard of the KKKK. A follower of Duke, Thomas Robb, changed the title of Grand Wizard to National Director, and replaced the Klan's white robes with business suits.[99] Duke first received broad public attention during this time, as he endeavored to market himself in the mid-1970s as a new brand of Klansman: well-groomed, engaged, and professional. Duke also reformed the organization, promoting nonviolence and legality, and, for the first time in the Klan's history, women were accepted as equal members and Catholics were encouraged to apply for membership.[100] Duke would repeatedly insist that the Klan was "not anti-black" but rather "pro-white" and "pro-Christian." Duke told The Daily Telegraph that he left the Klan in 1980 because he disliked its associations with violence and could not stop the members of other Klan chapters from doing "stupid or violent things."[101]"
I don't know the veracity of this, but even the SPLC doesn't accuse him of violence during his time there. And they're not exactly shameful about lying or distorting the truth.
By the way, Robert Byrd was lifelong Democrat senator, and he was also a member of the Klan, but he was allowed to escape his past, even though he filibustered the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Do you mean Kavanaugh's phony accuser that has an inconsistent, unsubstantiated story and has been caught lying about being afraid to fly, among other things?
attacks gold star families
You mean gold star families that attacked him politically?
and you think he wouldn't survive a simple picture?
No, he wouldn't have. David Duke is radioactive. There was a national media storm just because Trump didn't disavow him quick enough. And yet the same media is silent about Obama's and the Congressional Black Caucus's long associations with Farrakhan.
And let's put this into perspective. Trump was raked over the coals by the national media because he didn't immediately disavow David Duke when a reporter mentioned that Duke supported him. Imagine if that photo was Trump with David Duke instead, surrounded by a bunch of Republican congressmen. The national media storm would have been immense, and it's a story even Trump would not have survived, let alone the congressmen.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Ignore inconvenient news, including inconvenient photographs that show Saint Obama and the Congressional Black Caucus hang out with racist hate preachers. But here's the same story from the liberal New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/cult...
The quote is actually : extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The quote should be retired because it is wrong and perpetuates bullshit ideas about how science works.
But that really is how science works. If you make an extraordinary claim, such as that you've found particles move faster than light, you're going to need extraordinary evidence before the position is accepted.
If you're trying to prove the case for ESP, would you accept the same amount of evidence as for a more ordinary claim?
This is the basic idea behind Bayesian probability.
Google provided the tools for users to see what things extensions wanted access to, and users did not care. So now Google has to be more selective with their approval process.
Right. How dare these 3rd party apps spy on users. That's Google's job!
It applies because it establishes precedent. A lawsuit involving GPLv2 could claim the same reasoning applies.
It's not the precedent that the argument is about. That's why I mentioned it, to show that Bruce needs to provide referential evidence for the particular precedence claims he is making.
Try learning a little about rule of law before blathering on like a fool.
Try learning how to read competently instead of repeating what was already said, but not understanding the context or the basis of the argument. You're like that annoying kid that learned one thing and thinks he's an expert.
Okay Raenex, as an interested reader I will complete your thinking for you.
Oh, how wonderful! Except I was asking Bruce to back up his assertions, which he failed to do because, when pressed, he wanted to rely on puffery instead of referential evidence.
Jacobsen vs. Katzer is perfectly relevant to this discussion because it established that a license agreement can override copyright law by adding enforceable conditions. They can even override patent rights. It took me all of 30 seconds to do this search. Read these links:
Try actually reading my comments, you idiot. I already read and quoted from the Wikipedia article, explicitly stating that already:
"The case was ultimately settled, and the only legal precedent that Wikipedia mentions [wikipedia.org] is: "The case established the rule of law that terms and conditions of the Artistic License 1.0 are "enforceable copyright conditions".[3]""
But this is not what the argument is about or the case Bruce is making.
My recommendation is, go be a tool somewhere else.
My recommendation is for you to follow your own advice.
Established law includes case law. Bruce's testimony is relevant to case law. Wikipedia is not.
The Wikipedia article is referenced and includes quotations. Bruce did neither. Wikipedia wins. The only case you can have against the Wikipedia article is if you could show their references or quotations were either invalid or taken out of context.
Bruce's testimony does not establish case law. What establishes cases law are the rulings of judges. If Bruce's personal testimony was referenced by a judge, it would be pertinent. Other than that, it's window dressing.
Go read my testimony, not the Wikipedia. It's available online.
I don't care about your testimony. What I care about is established case law: what the judges ruled. It would also help if Raymond could clarify if it was this case or some other case he was thinking of, as well as the same legal justifications that I've asked of you.
The relevant case doesn't come from before the founding of OSI, so Eric appears to be confused here about what research he performed when. The relevant case is Jacobsen v. Katzer, and the parts about reputation come from my own expert testimony. They don't provide a method to terminate a license for a reputational loss.
That's your assertion. It's possible Raymond was talking about another case. I looked this case up, and it's about the Artistic License, not the GPL. The case was ultimately settled, and the only legal precedent that Wikipedia mentions is: "The case established the rule of law that terms and conditions of the Artistic License 1.0 are "enforceable copyright conditions".[3]"
You're going to need an actual reference and quotation to back up your claims.
50k in a quarter is a very solid number for a sedan in the US. 100k would be amazing - better than Camry sales. Dunno about OP, but I certainly would have bought more.
That's an extreme form of gambling. You would be betting on Tesla becoming a powerhouse of the car industry. Let's look at some company-wide numbers:
"Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. said vehicle deliveries in the U.S. fell 2 percent to 223,055 in August, which had the same number of selling days in 2017."
That's over 200,000 in one month.
Now let's look at a comparison of market capitalization in this article from one year ago:
"The top automakers, their market caps as of this week (June 19), and 2016 worldwide sales are:
1. Toyota, $155.88 billion market cap, 10.1 million sales 2. Daimler, (Mercedes-Benz), $70.35 billion, 3 million sales 3. Volkswagen, $67.24 billion, 10.3 million sales 4. Tesla, $60.28 billion, 76,230 sales 5. BMW, $54.77 billion, 2.4 million sales 6. GM, $51.45 billion, 9.6 million sales 7. Ford, $44.65 billion, 6.7 million sales"
Is it possible Tesla can eventually achieve numbers that justify their market cap? Yes. But missing in that price is the very real risk that they won't.
The fellow spreading this story that you can "rescind" code is more commonly known as MikeeUSA, a misogynist and general nutcase.
Eric Raymond also weighed in, and said: "First, let me confirm that this threat has teeth. I researched the relevant law when I was founding the Open Source Initiative. In the U.S. there is case law confirming that reputational losses relating to conversion of the rights of a contributor to a GPLed project are judicable in law. I do not know the case law outside the U.S., but in countries observing the Berne Convention without the U.S.'s opt-out of the "moral rights" clause, that clause probably gives the objectors an even stronger case."
Now we have Stallman weighing in and saying the opposite, with "I checked this with a lawyer". But we could also ask what prompted Stallman to add the "irrevocable" clause in GPL version 3.
In neither case do we have an actual link to case law. In other words, this is still an undecided issue. On the surface, Raymond's argument is stronger, but it needs a citation.
That citation doesn't support your claim that "the banking class is in a panic".
Banking classes don't openly admit panics if they can help it. But the word is charged with too immediate a concern, so please allow me to replace that with seriously concerned about an endemic threat to the current economic system.
It weakly supports the claim that "the current system depends on exponential growth"
The banking class doesn't like to talk about this either, but it's built into the system. Please watch Money as Debt.
"Previous generations fretted about the world having too many people. Today's problem is too few."
"Mounting pensions are an important reason peripheral European countries like Greece have such intractable debt burdens and why Germany is so reluctant to stimulate its own economy despite a balanced budget. Meanwhile, the movement of so many people into the highest-saving period of their lives has produced a bulge of excess savings that has held down interest rates and inflation, making it difficult for central bankers to use their traditional tools to revive economic growth."
"Older, richer countries can boost their immigrant intake from low-income economies primarily in Africa and Asia, which will make up a growing share of the world's working-age population--if they can overcome political opposition."
When you use Google to search for something, are you not providing Google data regarding what is on your mind? When you click one of their search results, are you not providing Google data?
You can change your search provider, or choose not to have search suggestions at all. That's what I do in all my Firefox installs.
Why does Firefox fail to have ad blocking technology built-in by default?
I don't think it's the proper role for Firefox to be doing that. It's good enough that we can block ads through plugins.
Improving living conditions and modernization has led to population growth declines across the world. What's scarier is that instead of being happy with this outcome, the banking class is in a panic because the current system depends on exponential growth. They've even been so stupid as to think they're going to solve growth problems in the developed world by mass importing people from Africa.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Farrakhan has said some crazy, stupid, hateful things, but that's about where the equivalence ends.
Yes, Farrakhan has, like "white people deserve to die". He also interfered into the investigation of a murdered policeman, threatening riots.
But hey, it's totally fine that the Congressional Black Caucus and Obama sought his endorsements. Because "the Klan".
The KKK, an organization to which David Duke belongs, has a very long history of systemic violence, lynching, and intimidation.
Duke doesn't belong to the Klan. He left it a long time ago. Furthermore, did he ever advocate for violence while at the Klan? This is what Wikipedia has to say about him during his time there:
"In 1974, Duke founded the Louisiana-based Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (KKKK), shortly after graduating from LSU.[98] He became Grand Wizard of the KKKK. A follower of Duke, Thomas Robb, changed the title of Grand Wizard to National Director, and replaced the Klan's white robes with business suits.[99] Duke first received broad public attention during this time, as he endeavored to market himself in the mid-1970s as a new brand of Klansman: well-groomed, engaged, and professional. Duke also reformed the organization, promoting nonviolence and legality, and, for the first time in the Klan's history, women were accepted as equal members and Catholics were encouraged to apply for membership.[100] Duke would repeatedly insist that the Klan was "not anti-black" but rather "pro-white" and "pro-Christian." Duke told The Daily Telegraph that he left the Klan in 1980 because he disliked its associations with violence and could not stop the members of other Klan chapters from doing "stupid or violent things."[101]"
I don't know the veracity of this, but even the SPLC doesn't accuse him of violence during his time there. And they're not exactly shameful about lying or distorting the truth.
By the way, Robert Byrd was lifelong Democrat senator, and he was also a member of the Klan, but he was allowed to escape his past, even though he filibustered the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Oh please, he insults victims of assault
Do you mean Kavanaugh's phony accuser that has an inconsistent, unsubstantiated story and has been caught lying about being afraid to fly, among other things?
attacks gold star families
You mean gold star families that attacked him politically?
and you think he wouldn't survive a simple picture?
No, he wouldn't have. David Duke is radioactive. There was a national media storm just because Trump didn't disavow him quick enough. And yet the same media is silent about Obama's and the Congressional Black Caucus's long associations with Farrakhan.
And by "hung out" you mean "taken a picture with once". Yeah.
Are you a useful idiot or just an apologist? This is not about "taking pictures", this is about seeking support and working with the Nation of Islam:
"Indeed, it's a sign of Farrakhan's oddly lasting hold on popular influence that he was even invited to clink drinks with the members of the C.B.C."
But his Farrakhan connections go way back.
And let's put this into perspective. Trump was raked over the coals by the national media because he didn't immediately disavow David Duke when a reporter mentioned that Duke supported him. Imagine if that photo was Trump with David Duke instead, surrounded by a bunch of Republican congressmen. The national media storm would have been immense, and it's a story even Trump would not have survived, let alone the congressmen.
Fox "news" is never correct.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Ignore inconvenient news, including inconvenient photographs that show Saint Obama and the Congressional Black Caucus hang out with racist hate preachers. But here's the same story from the liberal New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/cult...
Correct link: https://www.foxnews.com/politi...
Step 3. "He's a different kind of President. You'll just have to accept these kinds of things."
Step 0. Ignore that Obama hung out with the black equivalent of David Duke, Louis Farrakhan.
Was Obama a "different" kind of President? We don't have to accept these kind of things, we just have to ignore them.
The quote is actually : extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The quote should be retired because it is wrong and perpetuates bullshit ideas about how science works.
But that really is how science works. If you make an extraordinary claim, such as that you've found particles move faster than light, you're going to need extraordinary evidence before the position is accepted.
If you're trying to prove the case for ESP, would you accept the same amount of evidence as for a more ordinary claim?
This is the basic idea behind Bayesian probability.
Google provided the tools for users to see what things extensions wanted access to, and users did not care. So now Google has to be more selective with their approval process.
Right. How dare these 3rd party apps spy on users. That's Google's job!
It applies because it establishes precedent. A lawsuit involving GPLv2 could claim the same reasoning applies.
It's not the precedent that the argument is about. That's why I mentioned it, to show that Bruce needs to provide referential evidence for the particular precedence claims he is making.
Try learning a little about rule of law before blathering on like a fool.
Try learning how to read competently instead of repeating what was already said, but not understanding the context or the basis of the argument. You're like that annoying kid that learned one thing and thinks he's an expert.
Okay Raenex, as an interested reader I will complete your thinking for you.
Oh, how wonderful! Except I was asking Bruce to back up his assertions, which he failed to do because, when pressed, he wanted to rely on puffery instead of referential evidence.
Jacobsen vs. Katzer is perfectly relevant to this discussion because it established that a license agreement can override copyright law by adding enforceable conditions. They can even override patent rights. It took me all of 30 seconds to do this search. Read these links:
Try actually reading my comments, you idiot. I already read and quoted from the Wikipedia article, explicitly stating that already:
"The case was ultimately settled, and the only legal precedent that Wikipedia mentions [wikipedia.org] is: "The case established the rule of law that terms and conditions of the Artistic License 1.0 are "enforceable copyright conditions".[3]""
But this is not what the argument is about or the case Bruce is making.
My recommendation is, go be a tool somewhere else.
My recommendation is for you to follow your own advice.
Nope, won't be baited by a net.moron.
Lulz. You won't be "baited" to provide evidence for your claims. Who do you think you're fooling?
Established law includes case law. Bruce's testimony is relevant to case law. Wikipedia is not.
The Wikipedia article is referenced and includes quotations. Bruce did neither. Wikipedia wins. The only case you can have against the Wikipedia article is if you could show their references or quotations were either invalid or taken out of context.
Bruce's testimony does not establish case law. What establishes cases law are the rulings of judges. If Bruce's personal testimony was referenced by a judge, it would be pertinent. Other than that, it's window dressing.
Yawn. You failed to back up your claims. Not only did you not "educate" me, you've shown yourself unwilling to back up your claims to every reader.
You can read the ruling online as well.
You're making the claim as to precedence. I'm not going to do the work of backing up your claims for you.
Go read my testimony, not the Wikipedia. It's available online.
I don't care about your testimony. What I care about is established case law: what the judges ruled. It would also help if Raymond could clarify if it was this case or some other case he was thinking of, as well as the same legal justifications that I've asked of you.
The relevant case doesn't come from before the founding of OSI, so Eric appears to be confused here about what research he performed when. The relevant case is Jacobsen v. Katzer, and the parts about reputation come from my own expert testimony. They don't provide a method to terminate a license for a reputational loss.
That's your assertion. It's possible Raymond was talking about another case. I looked this case up, and it's about the Artistic License, not the GPL. The case was ultimately settled, and the only legal precedent that Wikipedia mentions is: "The case established the rule of law that terms and conditions of the Artistic License 1.0 are "enforceable copyright conditions".[3]"
You're going to need an actual reference and quotation to back up your claims.
50k in a quarter is a very solid number for a sedan in the US. 100k would be amazing - better than Camry sales. Dunno about OP, but I certainly would have bought more.
That's an extreme form of gambling. You would be betting on Tesla becoming a powerhouse of the car industry. Let's look at some company-wide numbers:
"Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. said vehicle deliveries in the U.S. fell 2 percent to 223,055 in August, which had the same number of selling days in 2017."
That's over 200,000 in one month.
Now let's look at a comparison of market capitalization in this article from one year ago:
"The top automakers, their market caps as of this week (June 19), and 2016 worldwide sales are:
1. Toyota, $155.88 billion market cap, 10.1 million sales
2. Daimler, (Mercedes-Benz), $70.35 billion, 3 million sales
3. Volkswagen, $67.24 billion, 10.3 million sales
4. Tesla, $60.28 billion, 76,230 sales
5. BMW, $54.77 billion, 2.4 million sales
6. GM, $51.45 billion, 9.6 million sales
7. Ford, $44.65 billion, 6.7 million sales"
Is it possible Tesla can eventually achieve numbers that justify their market cap? Yes. But missing in that price is the very real risk that they won't.
The fellow spreading this story that you can "rescind" code is more commonly known as MikeeUSA, a misogynist and general nutcase.
Eric Raymond also weighed in, and said: "First, let me confirm that this threat has teeth. I researched the relevant law when I was founding the Open Source Initiative. In the U.S. there is case law confirming that reputational losses relating to conversion of the rights of a contributor to a GPLed project are judicable in law. I do not know the case law outside the U.S., but in countries observing the Berne Convention without the U.S.'s opt-out of the "moral rights" clause, that clause probably gives the objectors an even stronger case."
Now we have Stallman weighing in and saying the opposite, with "I checked this with a lawyer". But we could also ask what prompted Stallman to add the "irrevocable" clause in GPL version 3.
In neither case do we have an actual link to case law. In other words, this is still an undecided issue. On the surface, Raymond's argument is stronger, but it needs a citation.
That citation doesn't support your claim that "the banking class is in a panic".
Banking classes don't openly admit panics if they can help it. But the word is charged with too immediate a concern, so please allow me to replace that with seriously concerned about an endemic threat to the current economic system.
It weakly supports the claim that "the current system depends on exponential growth"
The banking class doesn't like to talk about this either, but it's built into the system. Please watch Money as Debt.
Cite?
Sure. Some snippets:
"Previous generations fretted about the world having too many people. Today's problem is too few."
"Mounting pensions are an important reason peripheral European countries like Greece have such intractable debt burdens and why Germany is so reluctant to stimulate its own economy despite a balanced budget. Meanwhile, the movement of so many people into the highest-saving period of their lives has produced a bulge of excess savings that has held down interest rates and inflation, making it difficult for central bankers to use their traditional tools to revive economic growth."
"Older, richer countries can boost their immigrant intake from low-income economies primarily in Africa and Asia, which will make up a growing share of the world's working-age population--if they can overcome political opposition."
When you use Google to search for something, are you not providing Google data regarding what is on your mind? When you click one of their search results, are you not providing Google data?
You can change your search provider, or choose not to have search suggestions at all. That's what I do in all my Firefox installs.
Why does Firefox fail to have ad blocking technology built-in by default?
I don't think it's the proper role for Firefox to be doing that. It's good enough that we can block ads through plugins.
Improving living conditions and modernization has led to population growth declines across the world. What's scarier is that instead of being happy with this outcome, the banking class is in a panic because the current system depends on exponential growth. They've even been so stupid as to think they're going to solve growth problems in the developed world by mass importing people from Africa.
Life is Strange has been sitting in my Steam library for years, waiting to be played - which I hopefully will at some point.
It's a good game. I had my doubts about the young girl drama theme, but I really enjoyed it.
I want to take a moment and thank you, fellow Slashdot user, for the considerate manner in which you chose to keep this little argument spoiler free.
I didn't really think about it, so I guess you got lucky. I generally avoid discussions of games/movies if I want to play/watch them at some point.
I destroyed your lie, and now you come back with this weak strawman. Low effort.
It still has more meaningful choice than the typical TT game.
Like what? The only really meaningful choice was what ending you chose.
And it was produced on a shoestring, had episodic content etc.
Sooo, it was like a Telltale game?