I know this is funny and all, but having not previously looked into the name of the company and now looking at what the company has done in relation to its name, I read that as 'Insightful'.
Because if you're running an expensive to purchase UNIX, there's a good chance you've contracted a UNIX guy since getting UNIX costs money and you're going to want someone to manage the investment. As for linux, it costs nothing for your in place techs to tinker around and try to do something with it. If all the places that had been contacted had been asked if they had experienced administrators on the systems, many would likely have had them only for windows and proprietary UNIX machines, some for the Linux machines, and many would have had a professional Windows admin and a Linux newbie.
As a different point, should a rich man be able to fashion 10,000 replicas of himself to spread his own genes more rapidly? Does a lump of brain material created through cell manipulation have rights? What if it is tethered into an electronic speaking aparatus and shown to think. It's still not `human', it has no body, organs, normality. Most people would agree that a kidney is without right, what about growing bodies filled with organs purposefully fusing the brain stem to avoid intelligence? Is that human? What if it would have been if they didn't fuse the brain stem. What if you can't tell if it would have been? How does society decide?
My point was that the worst case isn't necessarily a broken model, but the response of the rest of humanity to this new creature. Many will deride it as inhuman. Others will call it an abomination. It will be hated. Cursed. Attacked. Many will definately consider the result of artificially modeling cells into a living organism as property. "Human? Only 72% after subtracting the sections modified. It's a thing, not a person, it just looks like a person for aesthetic reasons."
They take a couple decades to grow, right now. Given an attitude of inhumanity towards the clones, and the willingness to subject them to possibly gruesome experiment, their not being human and all, and you could probably find ways to increase their rate of growth. It is not important they be schooled or useful outside of their grown purpose ( probably the opposite desired ), and any benefits discovered could be retroactively used on real people, instead of just these things! Win-win!
Human cloning will be a Hell for the philosophers. And the clones. Especially the philospher clones.
Actually the worst case senario is not a merely "broken" human being. It is what is done with a cloned human being.
Do clones have rights? Of course not, they're property! We made them!
Sex slaves, your choice of size, sex, measurements, skin color? All right!
Overmuscled slaves for manual labor? All Right!
Beat a slave? Kill it? Who cares? They're yours to kill!
Conscience-free blood sport here we come!
Each of our custom crafted slaves are born with physical tell-tale markers that ensure you can tell the difference between one of these things and one of us, so no worries on that.
Each comes with a ten year lifetime warranty, after which the creature is designed to die a peaceful death of combination stroke and heart attack, to help get rid of old models without a lot of fuss, and keep newer models hitting the marketplace.
A specific protein inhibition stops them from creating proteins they need without access to our patented slave-chow brand feeds, to keep potential runaways under control. After all, how far can one of them run if it suddenly drops into a coma from not eating the right foods, eh?
And don't worry yourselves, each of our lovingly crafted slaves are completely sterile and without hope of spreading their bastard progency throughout the world.
Of course, we, as a race of thoughful and kind peoples, would never do that, and mankinds scientists would never engineer something into such a life. Then, mankind would never have and doesn't currently enslave natural born humans, right? And scientists never become so involved in their work they'd create something, like say a bomb that can destroy the known world, and only afterwards pause to realize what they've done. And scientists are just never outright immoral either, right?
yes, a nod to MCs JurassicPark on the protien thing bigger nod to Rifts Manhunter universe though.
Sorry, I misused the word contract. Contract is an agreement to perform action, license an agreement stating an allowance of priviledge. However, noting a license everywhere I previously stated contract, to attempt to distribute a GPL derived work after failing to meet a part of the GPL is still a violation, just of the licensing agreement, and as such removes your ability to distribute.
Trying to distribute software after failing to meet the requirements in the license is infringing on the copyrights of the authors. GPL protects me the original author. You the downstream author can use my works, on its very specific conditions. You cannot relicense, or refuse to distribute source, or any other bull shit. Nor can you revoke the rights of further downstream parties. With GPL, you lose the right to take the rights of others. If you want to do that, grab BSD.
Using software given to you on a condition, refusing to meet that condition, and then claiming you get the rights anyway is ignorant. "Sheesh".
But I didn't just give you permission to distribute my software. I gave you very specific permission to use my copyrighted work under the terms of a specific agreement. If you violate that agreement, you lose the rights you gained under said agreement, and hence have no rights at all, as I had not simply said `Here, distribute this.', but `Here, you may use this in a restricted fashion as long as you adhere to the following stipulations. A component of the usage that you will retain so long as you do not violate our agreement is the ability to distribute the work or modifications thereof.' I fail to see how a judge would argue that because under a specific set of conditions you have the right to distribute, you maintain that right when in direct violation of the contractual requirements to do so.
Stop using your CD-ROM drive as a drink holder then. Seriously, 1-4 crashes per day tells of deliberately attempting to use the system incorrectly. My most clueless users do not have such problems.
How?
ISP:: We see you've been sending packets across our infrastructure to our client nodes. .UK:: Yeah, we've got about five hundred customers on your network.
ISP:: Here's a bill for $$$$^$$ .UK:: Fuck off yank.
ISP:: We see.
* ISP shuts off all traffic from clients to.UK on grounds of failure to pay bill, shows clients website stating that.UK is at fault for not paying .UK:: You arse holes.
ISP:: And?
*.UK $$$$ -> ISP
Same to any and all foreign and domestic content providers.
Yes, but the BSD license is what allows moving to the more restrictive license. The BSD allows proprietary integration, the GPL explicitly denies this. Hence the uproar. When someone codes under the GPL, they do so agreeing to share their code only if whoever modifies it also shares their code in turn. If you don't want to abide by this, stay out of the GPL codebases. As many have pointed out, there are other sources of code.
-- following not targeting parent, but look through this section of the comments for plenty of examples --
I hope whoever's paying these fucking drones to whine and make ruckess about the GPL gets cancer in the face or something. It's fucking annoying, and they troll out threads constantly of late.
Linux is licensed as licensed and _cannot_ be changed no matter how much you bitch about it.
Please, do us a favor. Close slashdot, click [Start], [Shut Down] and hit [Enter]. I doubt half the people posting these complaints have even touched gnu\linux. I think I'll start using the "gnu\" from now on. Yes, it's annoying. I don't think I care anymore.
I honestly don't know if the receiving prior to sending thing is bunk or what, I am not a physicist.
However, I believe it would be safe to assume that the prior to sending beam could only appear if you were in fact going to send the beam, as in whatever dimension that allows this to happen, the beam is a single thing moving all at once through space and time, and not travelling unusually at all. It still has to be sent from the one time point to appear at the next. Or previous in this case. I think what I'm saying is the information would have velocity through time only if granted its equivilent of force.
If we were able to receive and then not send, it would be an odd inconsistancy in things.
Re:Maybe I'm just being cynical...
on
"H-Prize" Announced
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Of course they are spending more than this saving the owls. Do you know how combustable those things are? You can get back and forth to work for a week with the energy generated by burning just 2 gallons of owls. If oil bottoms out before some of these experimental technologies prove themselves, we'll still have our trusted spotted owls to fall back on.
Your rant on the FSF being in a ``la-la land'' is quite irrelevant to the point I made, which is only that one should not group BSD and GNU/Linux together in discussing driver license issues. Frankly, I do not know BSDs binary driver policy, though I must believe that they do not care if anyone links in proprietary binaries. They, after all, are the choice to give away ones work. Linux, is the choice to share and by license ensure that the recipients will share back.
This forced sharing is the very basis, the fundamental mentality behind the operating system I am writing this comment from. Behind many of its tools. To label something that has acted for so many years as an enabling and protective factor for the developers of such software as being crafted from "la-la land" seems telling.
I do not know if you are speaking out of ignorance of the matter, or fear of it, should you believe that such Free softare will somehow leave programmers, possibly yourself if you hold such a position, out of work. It is possible that you believe that gnu, linux and the rest of the Free software out there is somehow a great failure, despite its continuous worldwide usage gains since the inception of the license which acts out the intentions of the FSF.
It is obvious, regardless of your motivations, that you see the GPL as limiting your freedom. I point out, however, that this is not the case. You are not forced to use the GPL, nor software written under it. It is not mandatory use, nor is it tied to anything fundamental in computing. There are choices of platform for writing code expecting only credit, writing code expecting sharing in kind, and obviously closed source systems as well.
The only possible restriction it has on you is that it disallows yourself to take the work of others and then never share your changes with the community from which you benefited. It is a guard against leeching, forcing those that choose to use the work done under it to do any work they base off of this work under the same license. It is protecting not the rights of the current author, as does BSD, but specifically it is ensuring the rights of previous authors who gave to the project by ensuring they will receive also those changes made by others.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is funny and all, but having not previously looked into the name of the company and now looking at what the company has done in relation to its name, I read that as 'Insightful'.
"conspiracy to commit copyright infringement"
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004586.php
http://www.beta.netscape.com/member/alexrudloff/
So it's what, identity copyright infringment?
Because if you're running an expensive to purchase UNIX, there's a good chance you've contracted a UNIX guy since getting UNIX costs money and you're going to want someone to manage the investment. As for linux, it costs nothing for your in place techs to tinker around and try to do something with it. If all the places that had been contacted had been asked if they had experienced administrators on the systems, many would likely have had them only for windows and proprietary UNIX machines, some for the Linux machines, and many would have had a professional Windows admin and a Linux newbie.
Here is a flame (*) Seriously, are you fucking retarded?! Learn to search you useless crapbag! (burn!)
:)
(*) Build a man a fire, keep him warm for the night. Catch a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.
This still requires your average public to realize that they are citizens and not subjects.
As a different point, should a rich man be able to fashion 10,000 replicas of himself to spread his own genes more rapidly? Does a lump of brain material created through cell manipulation have rights? What if it is tethered into an electronic speaking aparatus and shown to think. It's still not `human', it has no body, organs, normality. Most people would agree that a kidney is without right, what about growing bodies filled with organs purposefully fusing the brain stem to avoid intelligence? Is that human? What if it would have been if they didn't fuse the brain stem. What if you can't tell if it would have been? How does society decide?
My point was that the worst case isn't necessarily a broken model, but the response of the rest of humanity to this new creature. Many will deride it as inhuman. Others will call it an abomination. It will be hated. Cursed. Attacked. Many will definately consider the result of artificially modeling cells into a living organism as property. "Human? Only 72% after subtracting the sections modified. It's a thing, not a person, it just looks like a person for aesthetic reasons."
They take a couple decades to grow, right now. Given an attitude of inhumanity towards the clones, and the willingness to subject them to possibly gruesome experiment, their not being human and all, and you could probably find ways to increase their rate of growth. It is not important they be schooled or useful outside of their grown purpose ( probably the opposite desired ), and any benefits discovered could be retroactively used on real people, instead of just these things! Win-win!
Human cloning will be a Hell for the philosophers. And the clones. Especially the philospher clones.
Of course, we, as a race of thoughful and kind peoples, would never do that, and mankinds scientists would never engineer something into such a life.
Then, mankind would never have and doesn't currently enslave natural born humans, right?
And scientists never become so involved in their work they'd create something, like say a bomb that can destroy the known world, and only afterwards pause to realize what they've done. And scientists are just never outright immoral either, right?
yes, a nod to MCs JurassicPark on the protien thing
bigger nod to Rifts Manhunter universe though.
Sorry, I misused the word contract. Contract is an agreement to perform action, license an agreement stating an allowance of priviledge. However, noting a license everywhere I previously stated contract, to attempt to distribute a GPL derived work after failing to meet a part of the GPL is still a violation, just of the licensing agreement, and as such removes your ability to distribute.
Trying to distribute software after failing to meet the requirements in the license is infringing on the copyrights of the authors. GPL protects me the original author. You the downstream author can use my works, on its very specific conditions. You cannot relicense, or refuse to distribute source, or any other bull shit. Nor can you revoke the rights of further downstream parties. With GPL, you lose the right to take the rights of others. If you want to do that, grab BSD.
Using software given to you on a condition, refusing to meet that condition, and then claiming you get the rights anyway is ignorant. "Sheesh".
But I didn't just give you permission to distribute my software. I gave you very specific permission to use my copyrighted work under the terms of a specific agreement. If you violate that agreement, you lose the rights you gained under said agreement, and hence have no rights at all, as I had not simply said `Here, distribute this.', but `Here, you may use this in a restricted fashion as long as you adhere to the following stipulations. A component of the usage that you will retain so long as you do not violate our agreement is the ability to distribute the work or modifications thereof.' I fail to see how a judge would argue that because under a specific set of conditions you have the right to distribute, you maintain that right when in direct violation of the contractual requirements to do so.
Stop using your CD-ROM drive as a drink holder then. Seriously, 1-4 crashes per day tells of deliberately attempting to use the system incorrectly. My most clueless users do not have such problems.
/ Posted from Linux, before you call fanaticism.
Seriously, they're spelled very differently. :p
How?
.UK:: Yeah, we've got about five hundred customers on your network.
.UK:: Fuck off yank. .UK on grounds of failure to pay bill, shows clients website stating that .UK is at fault for not paying
.UK:: You arse holes. .UK $$$$ -> ISP
/extortion
ISP:: We see you've been sending packets across our infrastructure to our client nodes.
ISP:: Here's a bill for $$$$^$$
ISP:: We see.
* ISP shuts off all traffic from clients to
ISP:: And?
*
Same to any and all foreign and domestic content providers.
At 101%, he not only definately buys one wii, but also steals the power button off of a second.
And I thought he used Malbolge
#define spork(a) fork(a)
sweet...
Type the HTML entities :: > > :: < < :: & & :: etc
I wonder how long until the switch ends up "In Soviet Russia, the Government listens to the People!" ...
Yes, but the BSD license is what allows moving to the more restrictive license. The BSD allows proprietary integration, the GPL explicitly denies this. Hence the uproar. When someone codes under the GPL, they do so agreeing to share their code only if whoever modifies it also shares their code in turn. If you don't want to abide by this, stay out of the GPL codebases. As many have pointed out, there are other sources of code.
-- following not targeting parent, but look through this section of the comments for plenty of examples --
I hope whoever's paying these fucking drones to whine and make ruckess about the GPL gets cancer in the face or something. It's fucking annoying, and they troll out threads constantly of late.
Linux is licensed as licensed and _cannot_ be changed no matter how much you bitch about it.
Please, do us a favor. Close slashdot, click [Start], [Shut Down] and hit [Enter]. I doubt half the people posting these complaints have even touched gnu\linux. I think I'll start using the "gnu\" from now on. Yes, it's annoying. I don't think I care anymore.
...
...
XXXIV : And thou shalt not, AND I MEAN THOU SHALT NOT, link to goatse.cx. EVER.
Speak for yourself, mortal.
:p
I honestly don't know if the receiving prior to sending thing is bunk or what, I am not a physicist.
However, I believe it would be safe to assume that the prior to sending beam could only appear if you were in fact going to send the beam, as in whatever dimension that allows this to happen, the beam is a single thing moving all at once through space and time, and not travelling unusually at all. It still has to be sent from the one time point to appear at the next. Or previous in this case. I think what I'm saying is the information would have velocity through time only if granted its equivilent of force.
If we were able to receive and then not send, it would be an odd inconsistancy in things.
Of course they are spending more than this saving the owls. Do you know how combustable those things are? You can get back and forth to work for a week with the energy generated by burning just 2 gallons of owls. If oil bottoms out before some of these experimental technologies prove themselves, we'll still have our trusted spotted owls to fall back on.
Your rant on the FSF being in a ``la-la land'' is quite irrelevant to the point I made, which is only that one should not group BSD and GNU/Linux together in discussing driver license issues. Frankly, I do not know BSDs binary driver policy, though I must believe that they do not care if anyone links in proprietary binaries. They, after all, are the choice to give away ones work. Linux, is the choice to share and by license ensure that the recipients will share back.
This forced sharing is the very basis, the fundamental mentality behind the operating system I am writing this comment from. Behind many of its tools. To label something that has acted for so many years as an enabling and protective factor for the developers of such software as being crafted from "la-la land" seems telling.
I do not know if you are speaking out of ignorance of the matter, or fear of it, should you believe that such Free softare will somehow leave programmers, possibly yourself if you hold such a position, out of work. It is possible that you believe that gnu, linux and the rest of the Free software out there is somehow a great failure, despite its continuous worldwide usage gains since the inception of the license which acts out the intentions of the FSF.
It is obvious, regardless of your motivations, that you see the GPL as limiting your freedom. I point out, however, that this is not the case. You are not forced to use the GPL, nor software written under it. It is not mandatory use, nor is it tied to anything fundamental in computing. There are choices of platform for writing code expecting only credit, writing code expecting sharing in kind, and obviously closed source systems as well.
The only possible restriction it has on you is that it disallows yourself to take the work of others and then never share your changes with the community from which you benefited. It is a guard against leeching, forcing those that choose to use the work done under it to do any work they base off of this work under the same license. It is protecting not the rights of the current author, as does BSD, but specifically it is ensuring the rights of previous authors who gave to the project by ensuring they will receive also those changes made by others.