I wonder, myself, how ignorant you have to be to support Israel
I dont think its ignorance, that implies they are uninformed or unaware of the facts.
Israeli has as a very good propaganda machine and they twist those facts around to suit themselves.
Israeli backers are more likely to be simply gullible, or otherwise unable to draw rational conclusions based on the facts presented to them rather than being ignorant of such facts.
Why should people care if they don't need or want to modify code?
They should care because they don't have the will or skill to maintain the tool that they are using, so they depend on someone else maintaining it.
The people who maintain the tools you are using need to be Free (eg need to be able to modify it).
best tool for the job
If you think really short term then the best tool for the job is probably the tool youve always used.
If you think long term then its worth getting a high quality customized tool.
The bottom line is that its not all about YOU and YOUR needs, its about a communities, if you avoid being part of that community then expect your needs to be ignored.
MP3 is a proprietary codec and is riddled with patent liability
But there is a country where the patent isnt valid then can it be cosnidered Free software in that country.
Why is the Free'ness of software judged according to the worst case scenario rules, why inst its legality localised regarding patents ?
Crazy US laws shouldnt be imposed on the rest of world without a damned good reason.
1. Who gets to decide why I can buy a.com or.net (or.whatever)
It doesnt matter who gets to decide as long as there are some rules to go by, like using tld for international purposes, why didnt you use your countries domain instead ?
2. Why is it so "wrong" if I buy a domain to use it as an advertising placeholder. Annoying - very. Is it a 'Commercial domain' (.com)? I would say yes. Sleazy? Very. Wrong? I don't know. ..
Defining right and wrong is a complex issue, but i would say that for something to be right/good it should benefit someone other than to yourself (either directly or indirectly). If people are only going there by accident, have no reason to go there, and get no benefit from going there, then how can it benefit anyone. Can something be good if it doesnt benfit anyone ?
But i guess the point of advertising is that its not supposed to benefit the majority/consumers, its supposed to benefit the minority/advertiser, and thats why the majority see excessive advertising as wrong.
Sorry - but seriously, that's exactly the system we already have today. Most companies, especially local companies only doing business in their home country (and that is the vast majority of businesses after all) already register only under their country domain
Because half of them have some advertising squater at the tld causing confusion to people looking for legit pages.
If we had restrictions on who could have.com.net.org to start with then we wouldnt have gotten into this confusing situation of country domains being second class domains.
Buyt it doesnt matter what changes are made now (for better or worse) its too entrenched for people to change their behaviour.
The copyright holder gets to decide what that is. Not you, shithead. You got that? Or do you need beaten into your fucking head? You people are the absolute worst of humanity.
And in the same post you accuse me of throwing a tantrum.
From your own post
"The monopoly exists for the betterment of copyright holder, not you and not other people."
Where is it written that other parties arent supposed to benefit from copyright, i dont know what planet your living on, but nobody i know would buy something that has no value to them.
The copyright holder cannot benefit in any practical way from copyrighted works unless the copyrighted works benefit society, where else are they going to draw their benefit from ?
Yes a copyright holder benefits from copyright laws (at least by having control), BUT THEY DONT AND CANNOT BENEFIT EXCLUSIVELY, the benefit has to come from somewhere... that somewhere is OTHER PEOPLE, i dont know why you cannot understand such a simple concept.
Im sure you must be trolling me...
"The intent of the law is to benefit the copyright holder as the copyright holder sees fit."
My POV is that the intention is to empower the copyright holder (which is a benefit in itself), whether they use that power to further benefit themselves or benefit others is not stated, and you should NOT make assumptions.
Do you have any argument to support your POV that the purpose of copyright law is benefit the copyright holder exclusively ?
"The intent of the law is to benefit the copyright holder as the copyright holder sees fit."
My POV is that the intention is to empower the copyright holder (which is a benefit in itself), whether they use that power to further benefit themselves or benefit others is not stated, and you should make assumptions.
Do you have any argument to support your POV that the purpose of copyright law is benefit the copyright holder exclusively ?
copyright law exists for the benefit of the copyright holder. Its intent and purpose is for the betterment of copyright holder, not you and not other people.
Google "purpose" and "Copyright" and you will see your wrong.
"The primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts--that is--knowledge.To accomplish this purpose, copyright ownership encourages authors/creators in their efforts by granting them a temporary monopoly, or ownership of exclusive rights for a specified length of time. However, this monopoly is somewhat limited when it conflicts with an overriding public interest, such as encouraging new creative and intellectual works, or the necessity for some members of the public to make a single copy of a work for non profit, educational purposes." - http://www.lib.byu.edu/departs/copyright/tutorial/module1/page3.htm
In this case, you are saying "We should be able to use the copyright laws to protect our copyright. But, people who don't believe as we do should not be able to protect their copyright in the same way"
No, we (err I) say we should be able to use copyright laws to promote the use and distribution of software. The music and movie cartels should also be allowed to use copyright to promote the use and distribution of their works.
The difference is that the music and movie cartels want to promote the use of their works in a more restrictive manner.
Again, its not about copyright, its about what its used to achieve.
You would ask mercy of them but would show them no mercy. You keep trying to justify you position by stating they should treat you better than you treat them.
You and your ilk continually violate their copyrights, then demand they show you mercy when you are caught. You taunt the giant, knowing its wrath, then cry for help and mercy when it turns it strength on you.
Its not about the copyright laws themselves, its about what they are used to achieve.
FSF uses copyright to achieve good things, Music and Movie cartels use copyrights to do bad things.
Try thinking a bit deeper, its about intent and purpose.
1. They only copied, NOT STOLE OR VIOLATED ANYTHING, a couple of bits.
The right to copy is the problem copyright seeks to address. To copy without permission is a copright violation. FSF hasnt claimed that cisco stole something ?
2. They wouldn't have bought it anyway.
The yhad to buy it or an equivalent product, if not they wouldnt have been able to sell their product.
3. The FSF is not going to give an type of damages to the people who origianlly created the works.
Copyleft has never been about protecting the people who created the works, its about protecting people who USE the works.
4. The FSF and it's failing business model...blah blah blah.
Sharing is not a business model, nobody claimed it was.
Now think...
These are not the droids your looking for.
FSF has very different goals to the music and video distribution corporations, you shouldnt get them confused.
If FSF forces them into compliance without cisco feeling some pain or regret then i suspect they wont hesitate to repeat their deeds.
I understand FSF wants to be the good guys,they have principles and ethics, but Cisco is fighting from a different rulebook, one where the winner is the one with the most money, not the highest morals.
The only way Cisco and other similar companies will accept defeat is you beat them on their own turf, playing by their own rules. That means take their money, as much as you can get.
"Freedom (in FSF definition) is sometimes essential to that goal, sometimes merely helpful, sometimes irrelevant. But by itself, it has no value."
Freedom by itself, as it, not being applied to anything has no value, and makes no sense, you cant have freedom of/from nothingness.
Software Freedom has probably helped everybody indirectly in some small way, it has allowed the development and maintenance of a software infrastructure that effects a big chunk of society (whether they are aware of it or not).
To say something like, Software Freedom doesnt help me use my ipod (or some other specific task) so it has no value is missing the bigger picture.
"I want a distro that makes my hardware work without a ton of fucking around because somebody philosophically disagreed with a driver. I also respect those who would rather not use such things."
You want freedom, but only if you dont have to defend it yourself.
AFAIK they were both ISP's before telco's became ISP's they survived the mergers.
iiNet has been one of companies standing up to telstra (X Aussie telco Monopolist) with their ADSL pricing, and was one of the first companies to roll out ADSL2
iiNet started as a "backyard" buisness and has given me the sense that they understood the customer; you know, that feeling you dont get from a telco.
DISCLAIMER: I liked them so much i bought some shares in them (and made a little money), but i dont own any at the moment.
Knowing facts and specific piece of knowledge is useful, but its must more important to know how to how to work things out. If you cant remember as much then dont try and remember much, if you find yourself working things out again and again, then you are reinforcing the process of gaining knowledge rather than reinforcing the knowledge itself. I think knowing the process rather than the result is the path to wisdom.
A smart person knows what to do, a wise person knows what not to do....
Slashdot Mirror
From the article you cite, "These numbers were published today, Monday, by the Israeli defense ministry"
How about a more impartial reference,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2003
It has Palestinian deaths at 4209 (890 of them children), Israel deaths at 1556 (113 children).
Israel keep saying they want peace whilst doing the majority of the killing
You just dont understand propaganda do you...
Why dont you take a look at the stats from http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
You point out bad things that hamas does, but you dont mention the bad things Israel does.
Israel has killed more civilians than hamas.
I wonder, myself, how ignorant you have to be to support Israel
I dont think its ignorance, that implies they are uninformed or unaware of the facts.
Israeli has as a very good propaganda machine and they twist those facts around to suit themselves.
Israeli backers are more likely to be simply gullible, or otherwise unable to draw rational conclusions based on the facts presented to them rather than being ignorant of such facts.
Israel has a problem with Palestinians, they try and solve it they are creating a problem with the rest of the world.
Talk is cheap.
Illusions are much more valuable
Why should people care if they don't need or want to modify code?
They should care because they don't have the will or skill to maintain the tool that they are using, so they depend on someone else maintaining it.
The people who maintain the tools you are using need to be Free (eg need to be able to modify it).
best tool for the job
If you think really short term then the best tool for the job is probably the tool youve always used.
If you think long term then its worth getting a high quality customized tool.
The bottom line is that its not all about YOU and YOUR needs, its about a communities, if you avoid being part of that community then expect your needs to be ignored.
MP3 is a proprietary codec and is riddled with patent liability But there is a country where the patent isnt valid then can it be cosnidered Free software in that country. Why is the Free'ness of software judged according to the worst case scenario rules, why inst its legality localised regarding patents ? Crazy US laws shouldnt be imposed on the rest of world without a damned good reason.
1. Who gets to decide why I can buy a .com or .net (or .whatever)
.
It doesnt matter who gets to decide as long as there are some rules to go by, like using tld for international purposes, why didnt you use your countries domain instead ?
2. Why is it so "wrong" if I buy a domain to use it as an advertising placeholder. Annoying - very. Is it a 'Commercial domain' (.com)? I would say yes. Sleazy? Very. Wrong? I don't know. .
Defining right and wrong is a complex issue, but i would say that for something to be right/good it should benefit someone other than to yourself (either directly or indirectly). If people are only going there by accident, have no reason to go there, and get no benefit from going there, then how can it benefit anyone. Can something be good if it doesnt benfit anyone ?
But i guess the point of advertising is that its not supposed to benefit the majority/consumers, its supposed to benefit the minority/advertiser, and thats why the majority see excessive advertising as wrong.
Sorry - but seriously, that's exactly the system we already have today. Most companies, especially local companies only doing business in their home country (and that is the vast majority of businesses after all) already register only under their country domain Because half of them have some advertising squater at the tld causing confusion to people looking for legit pages. If we had restrictions on who could have .com .net .org to start with then we wouldnt have gotten into this confusing situation of country domains being second class domains.
Buyt it doesnt matter what changes are made now (for better or worse) its too entrenched for people to change their behaviour.
The copyright holder gets to decide what that is. Not you, shithead. You got that? Or do you need beaten into your fucking head?
You people are the absolute worst of humanity.
And in the same post you accuse me of throwing a tantrum.
I said that the copyright holder has an exclusive right to his work, not that the purpose of the law is to benefit the copyright holder exclusively.
You said, and i quote "The monopoly exists for the betterment of copyright holder, not you and not other people."
Your saying that the monopoly (from copyright law) exists to benefit the copyright holder and not other people, sounds pretty exclusive to me.
But maybe your didnt say what you meant :/
And whats with the swearing in a lot of your responses, do you feel threatened ?
From your own post "The monopoly exists for the betterment of copyright holder, not you and not other people." Where is it written that other parties arent supposed to benefit from copyright, i dont know what planet your living on, but nobody i know would buy something that has no value to them. The copyright holder cannot benefit in any practical way from copyrighted works unless the copyrighted works benefit society, where else are they going to draw their benefit from ? Yes a copyright holder benefits from copyright laws (at least by having control), BUT THEY DONT AND CANNOT BENEFIT EXCLUSIVELY, the benefit has to come from somewhere... that somewhere is OTHER PEOPLE, i dont know why you cannot understand such a simple concept. Im sure you must be trolling me...
(damnit should have used preview button)
"The intent of the law is to benefit the copyright holder as the copyright holder sees fit."
My POV is that the intention is to empower the copyright holder (which is a benefit in itself), whether they use that power to further benefit themselves or benefit others is not stated, and you should NOT make assumptions.
Do you have any argument to support your POV that the purpose of copyright law is benefit the copyright holder exclusively ?
"The intent of the law is to benefit the copyright holder as the copyright holder sees fit." My POV is that the intention is to empower the copyright holder (which is a benefit in itself), whether they use that power to further benefit themselves or benefit others is not stated, and you should make assumptions. Do you have any argument to support your POV that the purpose of copyright law is benefit the copyright holder exclusively ?
copyright law exists for the benefit of the copyright holder. Its intent and purpose is for the betterment of copyright holder, not you and not other people.
Google "purpose" and "Copyright" and you will see your wrong.
"The primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts--that is--knowledge.To accomplish this purpose, copyright ownership encourages authors/creators in their efforts by granting them a temporary monopoly, or ownership of exclusive rights for a specified length of time. However, this monopoly is somewhat limited when it conflicts with an overriding public interest, such as encouraging new creative and intellectual works, or the necessity for some members of the public to make a single copy of a work for non profit, educational purposes." - http://www.lib.byu.edu/departs/copyright/tutorial/module1/page3.htm
In this case, you are saying "We should be able to use the copyright laws to protect our copyright. But, people who don't believe as we do should not be able to protect their copyright in the same way"
No, we (err I) say we should be able to use copyright laws to promote the use and distribution of software. The music and movie cartels should also be allowed to use copyright to promote the use and distribution of their works.
The difference is that the music and movie cartels want to promote the use of their works in a more restrictive manner.
Again, its not about copyright, its about what its used to achieve.
You would ask mercy of them but would show them no mercy. You keep trying to justify you position by stating they should treat you better than you treat them.
You and your ilk continually violate their copyrights, then demand they show you mercy when you are caught. You taunt the giant, knowing its wrath, then cry for help and mercy when it turns it strength on you.
Its not about the copyright laws themselves, its about what they are used to achieve.
FSF uses copyright to achieve good things, Music and Movie cartels use copyrights to do bad things.
Try thinking a bit deeper, its about intent and purpose.
1. They only copied, NOT STOLE OR VIOLATED ANYTHING, a couple of bits.
The right to copy is the problem copyright seeks to address. To copy without permission is a copright violation. FSF hasnt claimed that cisco stole something ?
2. They wouldn't have bought it anyway.
The yhad to buy it or an equivalent product, if not they wouldnt have been able to sell their product.
3. The FSF is not going to give an type of damages to the people who origianlly created the works.
Copyleft has never been about protecting the people who created the works, its about protecting people who USE the works.
4. The FSF and it's failing business model...blah blah blah.
Sharing is not a business model, nobody claimed it was.
Now think...
These are not the droids your looking for.
FSF has very different goals to the music and video distribution corporations, you shouldnt get them confused.
detrolled
If FSF forces them into compliance without cisco feeling some pain or regret then i suspect they wont hesitate to repeat their deeds.
I understand FSF wants to be the good guys,they have principles and ethics, but Cisco is fighting from a different rulebook, one where the winner is the one with the most money, not the highest morals.
The only way Cisco and other similar companies will accept defeat is you beat them on their own turf, playing by their own rules. That means take their money, as much as you can get.
Imaginary things are now real!
In Plato's theory of forms, he argued that an idea is more real than the instantiation of that idea.
An idea can be perfect, and implementation of an idea always has flaws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
all of that crazy stuff was added to C++ because it is useful.
If you want crazy stuff that was put there to be useful then why not use perl ?
ducks
"Freedom (in FSF definition) is sometimes essential to that goal, sometimes merely helpful, sometimes irrelevant. But by itself, it has no value."
Freedom by itself, as it, not being applied to anything has no value, and makes no sense, you cant have freedom of/from nothingness.
Software Freedom has probably helped everybody indirectly in some small way, it has allowed the development and maintenance of a software infrastructure that effects a big chunk of society (whether they are aware of it or not).
To say something like, Software Freedom doesnt help me use my ipod (or some other specific task) so it has no value is missing the bigger picture.
"I want a distro that makes my hardware work without a ton of fucking around because somebody philosophically disagreed with a driver. I also respect those who would rather not use such things."
You want freedom, but only if you dont have to defend it yourself.
I agree.
AFAIK they were both ISP's before telco's became ISP's they survived the mergers.
iiNet has been one of companies standing up to telstra (X Aussie telco Monopolist) with their ADSL pricing, and was one of the first companies to roll out ADSL2
iiNet started as a "backyard" buisness and has given me the sense that they understood the customer; you know, that feeling you dont get from a telco.
DISCLAIMER: I liked them so much i bought some shares in them (and made a little money), but i dont own any at the moment.
Knowing facts and specific piece of knowledge is useful, but its must more important to know how to how to work things out. If you cant remember as much then dont try and remember much, if you find yourself working things out again and again, then you are reinforcing the process of gaining knowledge rather than reinforcing the knowledge itself. I think knowing the process rather than the result is the path to wisdom.
A smart person knows what to do, a wise person knows what not to do....