However, I will make a point: The GPL emphasizes freedom for the USER/OPERATOR of the code, not the people who would extend the code. For them, it's far more important that someone who would install the code and run it on their system have the ability to dive into it, and modify it when needed than it is for someone who would write a patch for the code be able to sell that code. In that situation, the end user has much more freedom than under traditional proprietary software models. Not saying it's better one way or the other, just different. If you don't like it, that's perfectly acceptable, you just don't get to use the code.
So a bunch of random crap that you're not gonna be watching streaming internet video on anyway? So irrelevant?
The few grand which I haven't spent in upgrades hasn't slowed me down one bit! The few grand which you've spent on upgrades has... cost you a few grand.
Unless you're using that print server as your primary desktop, I highly doubt the validity of your statement.
Only idiots paint themselves into a corner where they have to depend on 11 year old OSes and hardware. What about when one of those systems goes down? How about security updates? I'm sure that 2000 install is real secure
So you accept your bullshit, "I think this is it" no logic at all reasoning, rather than an actual event you can point to that would cause it, and would take many, many crops out of the equation, thus driving up prices.
There is no way Occam's Razor even comes close to your explanation.
Such a mechanism would be too expensive to implement, and it will be extremely unpopular.
So? How many people took pay cuts over this past downturn? Most low income workers don't have much choice where they work, and those at the top will cut anyway, because there isn't much their employees can actually do.
If you actually paid attention, part of the reason why farm prices are up is due to a lot of shitty weather in other parts of the world over the past year, ruining crops. Meaning that it's not a permanent increase in prices.
And again, to attempt to explain to you, why should they be exempt from proving that their food is safe, that they are not spewing pollution into the environment, or that they are treating their workers fairly, just because they're small? Yes, I know it takes time. That is irrelevant. You're saying, "oh, they don't have that many people. Go ahead and spew all the pollution you want."
Even if such a regulatory environment were possible
It is.
it still favors large companies over small companies.
Not really. Unless you think that small companies should be able to get away with shit like not having to clean up pollution, or not treating workers fairly. And honestly, if you can't do that stuff, then you shouldn't be in business, small or large.
Here's the thing: Yes, in the long term, the better thing to do would be to reduce the public sector workforce. The problem is, if you do that at a time when the workforce as a whole was vastly reduced, all you're doing is trying to dig yourself out of a whole. There's definitely a place for austerity, but in the middle of a recession with high unemployment and low demand for goods is not it.
And your "broken window" story doesn't apply here. If anything the workers would probably be used repairing things that are already broken, through other means, sometime even just because they're old.
No, it's not. It's perfectly possible for that to happen. Those elected just have to know that the voters won't stand for officials that won't abide by those limits.
No, it didn't. The New Deal was instrumental in getting people back to work, and in growing the economy. It wasn't until the Republican Congress cut funding in 1937 that the US slipped back into recession.
And NO that is not what got us out of the great depression. It certainly prolonged it though.
You're extremely wrong on that. FDR's policies were working; the public works spending was getting people back to work, and GDP was growing. Production was up. It wasn't until 1937, when the Republican Congress dropped funding for these programs that the US slid back into recession. Attempts were made to reinstate them, while still balancing a budget, but they never came back until WWII. Had he continued, uninterrupted with his policies, and perhaps spent even more, the depression could have ended sooner.
For example, in 2009 Obama pushed for a bunch of "emergency" spending.
If you actually look at it, the vast majority of the "spending" was in the form of tax cuts. It's well accepted that these are one of the weakest forms of stimulus, as they give people and business extra money, but no incentive to spend it. Especially at the higher end, when they already have large amounts of surplus money that they're already not spending.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you replied to the wrong comment thread.
However, I will make a point: The GPL emphasizes freedom for the USER/OPERATOR of the code, not the people who would extend the code. For them, it's far more important that someone who would install the code and run it on their system have the ability to dive into it, and modify it when needed than it is for someone who would write a patch for the code be able to sell that code. In that situation, the end user has much more freedom than under traditional proprietary software models. Not saying it's better one way or the other, just different. If you don't like it, that's perfectly acceptable, you just don't get to use the code.
So a bunch of random crap that you're not gonna be watching streaming internet video on anyway? So irrelevant?
The few grand which I haven't spent in upgrades hasn't slowed me down one bit! The few grand which you've spent on upgrades has... cost you a few grand.
Unless you're using that print server as your primary desktop, I highly doubt the validity of your statement.
Only idiots paint themselves into a corner where they have to depend on 11 year old OSes and hardware. What about when one of those systems goes down? How about security updates? I'm sure that 2000 install is real secure
That fee is for ENCODERS, not decoders.
So fucking what? You have to download something, oh noes.
Remember, Flash doesn't come on any system at all. You have to download it, too.
So you accept your bullshit, "I think this is it" no logic at all reasoning, rather than an actual event you can point to that would cause it, and would take many, many crops out of the equation, thus driving up prices.
There is no way Occam's Razor even comes close to your explanation.
Such a mechanism would be too expensive to implement, and it will be extremely unpopular.
So? How many people took pay cuts over this past downturn? Most low income workers don't have much choice where they work, and those at the top will cut anyway, because there isn't much their employees can actually do.
So? They also pay a lot of sales tax, and a lot of gas tax. And they have kids that grow up and go to universities, getting better jobs.
If you actually paid attention, part of the reason why farm prices are up is due to a lot of shitty weather in other parts of the world over the past year, ruining crops. Meaning that it's not a permanent increase in prices.
No, you're not "just saying", you're completely missing the point of the analogy.
Bullshit. He's going to get his bonus either way. Remember back when the banks were bailed out? How most of them still got bonuses anyway?
And again, to attempt to explain to you, why should they be exempt from proving that their food is safe, that they are not spewing pollution into the environment, or that they are treating their workers fairly, just because they're small? Yes, I know it takes time. That is irrelevant. You're saying, "oh, they don't have that many people. Go ahead and spew all the pollution you want."
No, I shouldn't. That is not "freedom of association". It's discrimination, pure and simple. And it's disgusting.
Tell me, why should your "freedom of association" be able to trump my requirement that I be able to work? Or buy food?
And if you had paid attention, you'd see that all the tax cuts were applied, but a huge portion of the spending did not occur.
Uhhh, no. And none of the stuff I had mentioned is the least bit "progressive". They're all policies you indicate you'd like to return to.
Even if such a regulatory environment were possible
It is.
it still favors large companies over small companies.
Not really. Unless you think that small companies should be able to get away with shit like not having to clean up pollution, or not treating workers fairly. And honestly, if you can't do that stuff, then you shouldn't be in business, small or large.
Here's the thing: Yes, in the long term, the better thing to do would be to reduce the public sector workforce. The problem is, if you do that at a time when the workforce as a whole was vastly reduced, all you're doing is trying to dig yourself out of a whole. There's definitely a place for austerity, but in the middle of a recession with high unemployment and low demand for goods is not it.
And your "broken window" story doesn't apply here. If anything the workers would probably be used repairing things that are already broken, through other means, sometime even just because they're old.
So far NOTHING about the US reaction to the recession has resembled Austerity
Yeah, those massive budget cuts have nothing to do with Austerity. /s
No, it's not. It's perfectly possible for that to happen. Those elected just have to know that the voters won't stand for officials that won't abide by those limits.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Canada been a lot less effected by the economic downturn than the US?
Considering the US has done the exact OPPOSITE of austerity since 2008 I don't know how you can continue to argue that austerity is even related here.
Because we're trying to do it now, in one of the stupidest possible moves during an economic downturn.
No, it didn't. The New Deal was instrumental in getting people back to work, and in growing the economy. It wasn't until the Republican Congress cut funding in 1937 that the US slipped back into recession.
Yes, how dare they think that policies which get people back to work, and help grow the economy actually help.
And NO that is not what got us out of the great depression. It certainly prolonged it though.
You're extremely wrong on that. FDR's policies were working; the public works spending was getting people back to work, and GDP was growing. Production was up. It wasn't until 1937, when the Republican Congress dropped funding for these programs that the US slid back into recession. Attempts were made to reinstate them, while still balancing a budget, but they never came back until WWII. Had he continued, uninterrupted with his policies, and perhaps spent even more, the depression could have ended sooner.
For example, in 2009 Obama pushed for a bunch of "emergency" spending.
If you actually look at it, the vast majority of the "spending" was in the form of tax cuts. It's well accepted that these are one of the weakest forms of stimulus, as they give people and business extra money, but no incentive to spend it. Especially at the higher end, when they already have large amounts of surplus money that they're already not spending.