"Organically grown" food is food grown and processed using no synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. Pesticides derived from natural sources (such as biological pesticides) may be used in producing organically grown food.
Contrary to your ladybug example, this is what the epa.gov has to say about one biological pesticide option:
Biochemical pesticides are naturally occurring substances that control pests by non-toxic mechanisms. Conventional pesticides, by contrast, are generally synthetic materials that directly kill or inactivate the pest. Biochemical pesticides include substances, such as insect sex pheromones, that interfere with mating, as well as various scented plant extracts that attract insect pests to traps. Because it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a substance meets the criteria for classification as a biochemical pesticide, EPA has established a special committee to make such decisions.
I prefer organic produce personally, but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to misrepresent the facts and call people idiots over the matter.
Some of your comments are a bit ill-conceived. There are plenty of places where taking metro and bus are faster than driving. Sharing an apartment/house with 2-4 people can mitigate the cost of housing. You can also buy healthy food for cheap and growing food in a garden is free. Obviously you would forgo some of the creature comforts that a lot of Americans take for granted, but it would not necessarily be as dire as you describe. Just because people can't stay out of debt because they refuse to cancel their cable doesn't mean that everyone is fiscally retarded.
If the internet is that essential you can spend the money you would be dumping on full desktop systems to purchase redundant internet connections. If that fails, go to Starbucks and user their wireless...
The Compliance Lab has been an informal activity of the FSF since 1992 and was formalized in December 2001. We handle all licensing-related issues for FSF. We serve the free software community by providing the public with a "knowledge infrastructure" surrounding the GNU GPL and free software licensing, and enforcing the license on FSF-copyrighted software.
I never said that GPL was about complete freedom. I did not say GPL was about freedom to distribute however you want. While you may not agree with the restrictions of the GPL, I think you would have a hard time arguing that it is not fair. After all, the fact that you accepting the license means that you are getting someone else's work for free. I think its only fair to return the favor. The bottom line is that the GPL is the best known way of ensuring a healthy source-sharing community. The Microsoft way does not allow derivative works and forks and the BSD way relies solely on the good will of developers to contribute back code. Can all systems of code sharing work? Absolutely.
You must not have read what you quoted, because I only talk about the freedom to:
a) obtain the code
b) modify the code
The only stipulation I mention is that this is guaranteed to everyone. Closing the source of the program obviously removes my freedom to modify the code you produced doesn't it? You remind me of people that say things like, "America is a free country. I can do whatever I want." Yes, America is a free country, and no, you cannot do whatever you want. The GPL guarantees everyone certain freedoms, but no, you can't do whatever you want with it.
Maybe your confusion is due to the fact that you think the GPL zealot crowd actually cares about copyright. What we care about is freedom. In the GPL's case, it is guaranteeing everyone the freedom to take a program and modify it however they desire. In this case, the concern is about the freedom to use software one has purchased however one desires. As far as I know, this has not been settled by court as copyright infringement. Incidentally, you don't have to support everything about copyright or detest it completely. You can see good and bad implications and places where there is room for improvement. Its perfectly reasonable for me to want to see GPL content covered by copyright and not desire that 40-year old books also be covered.
I my post was on capitalism because that is the word the GP used. Capitalism exists with government interference, and in that case cannot be considered free enterprise. For example, corporations that received assistance from the government during the bail-out, while still part of a capitalist system, are not operating on free enterprise principles, as they depend on the government.
It would seem that by economics of scale (you can fit several hundred people on a train), if you can get most people to use the rail system, it would become profitable within a short time. While Amtrack is certainly a money hole, I would be surprised if something like the NYC metro system or the Deutsche Bahn had the same problem. As for the US Military, while it is not likely to ever turn a profit directly, it can shape foreign policy in a way that would improve trade, thus assisting the economy overall.
How is desiring that the government only concern itself with governance anti-capitalistic? it seems that you are using the terms free enterprise and capitalism interchangeably. While free enterprise is definitely a major factor in capitalism, equally important factors are that capitalism is privately funded and the objective is generating capital (i.e. financial wealth). Publicly funded projects focussed on helping a community or the greater good are not in line with capitalism in any way. One distinct characteristic of laissez faire capitalism is that if it does not turn a profit it fails. Publicly funded projects often have no such limiting factor, which is one reason many people prefer to see projects that are not relevant to governance to be managed by the private sector.
Whatever figure you choose to believe as to the cost of the war, it was certainly expensive. What with the near collapse of our economy, and other issues like global warming, we'd be a lot better off if we were somewhere close to a trillion less in the hole financially. If we had spent some or all of that money developing new greener energy technologies, things would look a lot better right now. But we spent it on a big murderous camping trip in the desert.
Certainly I agree with you on how much the war effort has been a waste of money, but congress approves the funding for this war, so your point is mute. You are also being rather deceptive stating that congress authorized force in Iraq after the fact. The authorization was approved by Congress in October 2002, while the invasion occured in March 2003
I've talked to a lot of people that have tried the new office. None of them like the ribbon interface. Certainly my experience is limited, but I have been unable to find a person that found it intuitive. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that no other program interface uses this system. Then again, I thought personalised menus were a major pain in the ass as well.
Placing all the blame on a president shows that you are either terribly ignorant of the structure of the US government and the concept of a balance of powers, or that you believe the US constitution has utterly failed to create and sustain said balance.
Freedom requires that out of copyright books and older books whose legal status is unclear (which is what we're talking about) be scannable/distributable by everyone, or else by no-one.
Thats are really idiotic statement. I'd rather have restricted access to a resource than none at all. Your little idealistic thought would be great in a world where the books could digitize themselves at no cost or effort to anyone. That is not the case and the books in question are still protected by copyright, which by definition prevents them from being 'scannable/distributable by everyone'. Are you telling me you never access any copyrighted material because copyright restricts your "freedom requirement"?
Slashdot Mirror
"Organically grown" food is food grown and processed using no synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. Pesticides derived from natural sources (such as biological pesticides) may be used in producing organically grown food.
Contrary to your ladybug example, this is what the epa.gov has to say about one biological pesticide option:
Biochemical pesticides are naturally occurring substances that control pests by non-toxic mechanisms. Conventional pesticides, by contrast, are generally synthetic materials that directly kill or inactivate the pest. Biochemical pesticides include substances, such as insect sex pheromones, that interfere with mating, as well as various scented plant extracts that attract insect pests to traps. Because it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a substance meets the criteria for classification as a biochemical pesticide, EPA has established a special committee to make such decisions.
I prefer organic produce personally, but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to misrepresent the facts and call people idiots over the matter.
You do realize we were screening for all the things that would have prevented "building airplane-collision" before 2001, don't you?
Not if it's impossible to enter the pilot compartment from the passenger compartment.
And that is why all the arguments being made that the IT departments aren't responsible for companies sticking with IE6 are nonsensical.
Some of your comments are a bit ill-conceived. There are plenty of places where taking metro and bus are faster than driving. Sharing an apartment/house with 2-4 people can mitigate the cost of housing. You can also buy healthy food for cheap and growing food in a garden is free. Obviously you would forgo some of the creature comforts that a lot of Americans take for granted, but it would not necessarily be as dire as you describe. Just because people can't stay out of debt because they refuse to cancel their cable doesn't mean that everyone is fiscally retarded.
If the internet is that essential you can spend the money you would be dumping on full desktop systems to purchase redundant internet connections. If that fails, go to Starbucks and user their wireless...
They give that version the name unstable for a reason. Try if if you don't mind your shit breaking every once in a while.
I've never had dependency problems with apt-get. Where are you getting this?
enforcing the license on FSF-copyrighted software
They do, however accept reports of suspected GPL violations and assist GPL developers in upholding their rights.
The Compliance Lab has been an informal activity of the FSF since 1992 and was formalized in December 2001. We handle all licensing-related issues for FSF. We serve the free software community by providing the public with a "knowledge infrastructure" surrounding the GNU GPL and free software licensing, and enforcing the license on FSF-copyrighted software.
How much success has there been comparing object code to determine whether source code copying has occurred?
I never said that GPL was about complete freedom. I did not say GPL was about freedom to distribute however you want. While you may not agree with the restrictions of the GPL, I think you would have a hard time arguing that it is not fair. After all, the fact that you accepting the license means that you are getting someone else's work for free. I think its only fair to return the favor. The bottom line is that the GPL is the best known way of ensuring a healthy source-sharing community. The Microsoft way does not allow derivative works and forks and the BSD way relies solely on the good will of developers to contribute back code. Can all systems of code sharing work? Absolutely.
You must not have read what you quoted, because I only talk about the freedom to: a) obtain the code b) modify the code The only stipulation I mention is that this is guaranteed to everyone. Closing the source of the program obviously removes my freedom to modify the code you produced doesn't it? You remind me of people that say things like, "America is a free country. I can do whatever I want." Yes, America is a free country, and no, you cannot do whatever you want. The GPL guarantees everyone certain freedoms, but no, you can't do whatever you want with it.
Maybe your confusion is due to the fact that you think the GPL zealot crowd actually cares about copyright. What we care about is freedom. In the GPL's case, it is guaranteeing everyone the freedom to take a program and modify it however they desire. In this case, the concern is about the freedom to use software one has purchased however one desires. As far as I know, this has not been settled by court as copyright infringement. Incidentally, you don't have to support everything about copyright or detest it completely. You can see good and bad implications and places where there is room for improvement. Its perfectly reasonable for me to want to see GPL content covered by copyright and not desire that 40-year old books also be covered.
Whenever I've had to deal with multiple emails, I have used gmail's ability to download mail from other servers and tag them automatically for me...
I my post was on capitalism because that is the word the GP used. Capitalism exists with government interference, and in that case cannot be considered free enterprise. For example, corporations that received assistance from the government during the bail-out, while still part of a capitalist system, are not operating on free enterprise principles, as they depend on the government.
It would seem that by economics of scale (you can fit several hundred people on a train), if you can get most people to use the rail system, it would become profitable within a short time. While Amtrack is certainly a money hole, I would be surprised if something like the NYC metro system or the Deutsche Bahn had the same problem. As for the US Military, while it is not likely to ever turn a profit directly, it can shape foreign policy in a way that would improve trade, thus assisting the economy overall.
How is desiring that the government only concern itself with governance anti-capitalistic? it seems that you are using the terms free enterprise and capitalism interchangeably. While free enterprise is definitely a major factor in capitalism, equally important factors are that capitalism is privately funded and the objective is generating capital (i.e. financial wealth). Publicly funded projects focussed on helping a community or the greater good are not in line with capitalism in any way. One distinct characteristic of laissez faire capitalism is that if it does not turn a profit it fails. Publicly funded projects often have no such limiting factor, which is one reason many people prefer to see projects that are not relevant to governance to be managed by the private sector.
What exactly does the new driver offer that makes such a huge difference? I'm using 180, which is offered through the Ubuntu repository.
I always wondered why marriage has anything to do with the government anyway.
Whatever figure you choose to believe as to the cost of the war, it was certainly expensive. What with the near collapse of our economy, and other issues like global warming, we'd be a lot better off if we were somewhere close to a trillion less in the hole financially. If we had spent some or all of that money developing new greener energy technologies, things would look a lot better right now. But we spent it on a big murderous camping trip in the desert.
Certainly I agree with you on how much the war effort has been a waste of money, but congress approves the funding for this war, so your point is mute. You are also being rather deceptive stating that congress authorized force in Iraq after the fact. The authorization was approved by Congress in October 2002, while the invasion occured in March 2003
I've talked to a lot of people that have tried the new office. None of them like the ribbon interface. Certainly my experience is limited, but I have been unable to find a person that found it intuitive. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that no other program interface uses this system. Then again, I thought personalised menus were a major pain in the ass as well.
Placing all the blame on a president shows that you are either terribly ignorant of the structure of the US government and the concept of a balance of powers, or that you believe the US constitution has utterly failed to create and sustain said balance.
Are you saying an Australian CAN'T have a pet kangaroo or love Crocodile Dundee? How presumptuous. You must be racist.
Freedom requires that out of copyright books and older books whose legal status is unclear (which is what we're talking about) be scannable/distributable by everyone, or else by no-one.
Thats are really idiotic statement. I'd rather have restricted access to a resource than none at all. Your little idealistic thought would be great in a world where the books could digitize themselves at no cost or effort to anyone. That is not the case and the books in question are still protected by copyright, which by definition prevents them from being 'scannable/distributable by everyone'. Are you telling me you never access any copyrighted material because copyright restricts your "freedom requirement"?