Morality is doing what you think is right, ethics is doing what society thinks is right.
Morality is only loaded with religious ideas if you are a religious person, or believe in those religious ideas independently.
"moral" being defined as "behaving in a way that benefits others"
"behaving in ways that benefit others" is almost altruism (which is putting others needs before your own), its the opposite to egoism (putting your own needs before others).
Altruism can be moral and ethical, egoism can also be moral and ethical, it depends on the individual and the society.
1) IT folk need to understand that they are there to solve business problems, not IT problems, and need to leave a little more about business, instead of making business people learn the IT language.
And people wonder why comp-sci is dying... there is more to IT than just business.
Id guess that the TCO of DOS is cheaper than Windows, but so what ?
Comparing the cost of linux and windows is like comparing the price of a car and a motorbike, you get so much more when you buy a car...
Windows you dont get source, security, accountability, you dont really have control of the product.
Until you can put a dollar figure on freedom you cant accurately compare the cost of free and non free software.
They can say, but they are worth nothing to us so (or the same as windows) so we have them at zero dollars, thats not the point, the point is your getting them anyway wether you like or not.
Left / Right leanings are utterly irrelevant to Free software
Politics is relevant to everything, but ill assume your not a troll and that your just being ignorant. Take a look at political compass, personal and financial freedom are big factors in politic leaning. To suggest Free software isnt political... your strange.
Left wing people are more likely to be altruists, right wing people are more likely to be egoists.
Free software is compatible with an altruist views because they appreciate the community aspect of it, they see the bigger picture.
Free Software is compatible with an egoist views because they get stuff without having to pay for it (usually).
Developers are more likely to be left wing, users can be a mixed bag.
"This increases their planning overhead, their budget overhead, and possibly their coordination overhead. They also have to acquire more information from more sources, and possibly design, manufacture, and smuggle aboard additional equipment."
Are you expecting terrorist organisations to declare their activities are no longer economically viable and "fire" their employees ?
Maybe they can file for bankruptcy protection to stave off the inevitable.../sarcasm
Seriously, i doubt the extremists these systems are targeting run their operations like a corporation, or care about economics.
"No, no, no... Copyright gives the author exclusive rights over distribution."
To quote from Open Source Licensing by Lawrence Rosen
"So too, if you own a copyright, you have have an exclusive right to do certain things with your copyrighted intellectual property that others cannot do without your permission:
* You have an exclusive right to make copies.
* You have an exclusive right to prepare derivative works
* You have an exclusive right to distribute copies of the original or derivative works."
(an other rights for specific types of works)
The right to distribute is worthless by itself, you need to be able to copy it to distribute it.
Actually, it gives the copyright holder exclusive rights, the author/creator is originally the copyright holder, but ownership of the copyright can be transfered to say a publisher.
Copyright gives the author exclusive rights over copying, they can attach other conditions (like money, only making 1 copy, not making it available) when they grant the rights to copy, but copyright is only supposed to be about copy rights... surprised ?
If the copyright agreement doesnt mention "making availabile" then copyright cant prohibit it.
1) using your distro's tools and packages. If this doesnt work change distro's
2) from source code. This should be fine as long as the user knows what hes doing and doesnt overwrite distro's files.
3) using 3rd party tools or packages. Dont expect it to work, its a totally flawed concept, this method is for people who dont understand what a distro is, if it did there would be only 1 distribution. This is why LSB packages are doomed.
"such as by enabling people to rent content at a lower price than ownership"
Consumers don't get the opportunity to "own" media, consumers get no ownership rights at all, we cant resell, get a refund etc like you can with a TV you buy.
Consumers get usage rights as granted by the copyright holder, DRM makes it easier to restrict these usage rights which takes us further away from what they would call "ownership".
"Oh and you want to talk about balancing in Eve? Don't make me link all the "Nerf Amarr", "Boost Minmatar" and all the other threads involving balance between the races."
Dude, during your extensive time playing eve did you notice that you fly other race's ships, and you arent pigeon holed into a partiular style of play (healer/tank/dps/hydrid), in eve your character can progress in whatever direction you like.
"To make all 9 classes perfectly balanced is asking way too much"
You say it all here, you know WoW will never be balanced as its based on a broken design.
WoW has some major weaknesses as well.
- 2 years in and they still dont have class balance, it looks like they never will.
- Deadend skill progression system
Unless youve played eve-online you probably dont appreciate how broken aspects of WoW are.
If person X creates an original work, and person Y creates a derivative work (a patch to X's work), then both X and Y have full copyright control over their work.
If the copyright of X and Y's work are under a compatible licence they can be combined and released as a collective work, the copyright on the collective work i think is held by the person who does the release, however this is only a very weak type of copyright, and doesnt impede the copyright of the original or derivative work.
Now suppose evil corp violates the copyright licence, they have violated both X and Y's work, so each has the power to sue individually but only to resolve the issues with their own work, not the other persons.
Suppose evil corp knows its beaten and wants to settle, there is no one person they can settle with, so they have to reach agreement with 2 people instead of one. Now imagine that instead of there being just 2 copyright holders there were a thousand. As a collective the copyright holders have the power to make the problem go away so they have an extra bargaining chip.
Separating it into more cases just means the lawyers get more as there are more overheads.
But this is all academic as free software people hardly every sue for damages, they just want evil corp to stop being evil.
Another benefit of assigning copyright to an independent 3rd party is that if you ever wanted to sue of damages as a result of copyright infringement you need the concent of all the copyright holders.
In most open source projects you could never track down all the contributers, so it would be very difficult to sue for damages.
And if you have a group of a dozen programmers all working on a project then its a bigger ask to expect them all to sign the code over the project leader, rather than someone like FSF/FSFE
What happens is that your rockets get loaded a truck and an internet delivers those trucks to the server, its faster because your rockets are traveling en-mass.
Senator Ted Stephens started a rumor claiming that "the internet is not a big truck, its a series of tubes" dont listen to him, we all know rockets cant fly down tubes, they cant even steer.
I do think Microsoft/Gates has exploited the world through their monopoly (which is very anti-capitalist), but i dont claim that it was illegal, and i expect he will end it giving more than 10% of back, after all he gets no return on it when hes dead, and this way he gets to buy some respect.
I do see what you mean about editing and "Muhammad", its probably just as hard as trying to say something about Israel that doesnt have the blessing of Israel's government... there are extremists everywhere.
The only solution is to be objective, cite references, justify the materials importance, if it still doesnt fit, find a new page that is more appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
Morality is doing what you think is right, ethics is doing what society thinks is right.
Morality is only loaded with religious ideas if you are a religious person, or believe in those religious ideas independently.
"moral" being defined as "behaving in a way that benefits others"
"behaving in ways that benefit others" is almost altruism (which is putting others needs before your own), its the opposite to egoism (putting your own needs before others).
Altruism can be moral and ethical, egoism can also be moral and ethical, it depends on the individual and the society.
1) IT folk need to understand that they are there to solve business problems, not IT problems, and need to leave a little more about business, instead of making business people learn the IT language.
And people wonder why comp-sci is dying... there is more to IT than just business.
Id guess that the TCO of DOS is cheaper than Windows, but so what ?
Comparing the cost of linux and windows is like comparing the price of a car and a motorbike, you get so much more when you buy a car...
Windows you dont get source, security, accountability, you dont really have control of the product.
Until you can put a dollar figure on freedom you cant accurately compare the cost of free and non free software.
They can say, but they are worth nothing to us so (or the same as windows) so we have them at zero dollars, thats not the point, the point is your getting them anyway wether you like or not.
think of this from a philosophical viewpoint, rather than physics...
If a "nothing" can create something, then its not nothing.
I suggest what he is proposing is a new type of something.
Left / Right leanings are utterly irrelevant to Free software
Politics is relevant to everything, but ill assume your not a troll and that your just being ignorant. Take a look at political compass, personal and financial freedom are big factors in politic leaning. To suggest Free software isnt political... your strange.
Left wing people are more likely to be altruists, right wing people are more likely to be egoists.
Free software is compatible with an altruist views because they appreciate the community aspect of it, they see the bigger picture.
Free Software is compatible with an egoist views because they get stuff without having to pay for it (usually).
Developers are more likely to be left wing, users can be a mixed bag.
"This increases their planning overhead, their budget overhead, and possibly their coordination overhead. They also have to acquire more information from more sources, and possibly design, manufacture, and smuggle aboard additional equipment."
/sarcasm
Are you expecting terrorist organisations to declare their activities are no longer economically viable and "fire" their employees ?
Maybe they can file for bankruptcy protection to stave off the inevitable...
Seriously, i doubt the extremists these systems are targeting run their operations like a corporation, or care about economics.
"No, no, no... Copyright gives the author exclusive rights over distribution."
To quote from Open Source Licensing by Lawrence Rosen
"So too, if you own a copyright, you have have an exclusive right to do certain things with your copyrighted intellectual property that others cannot do without your permission:
* You have an exclusive right to make copies.
* You have an exclusive right to prepare derivative works
* You have an exclusive right to distribute copies of the original or derivative works."
(an other rights for specific types of works)
The right to distribute is worthless by itself, you need to be able to copy it to distribute it.
"a press would start printing" which requires a licence, as it creating a copy of something that somebody else has been granted exclusive rights over.
To say its willful implies intent, which is something that cant be hard coded into law, its something a judge/jury need to consider.
Actually, it gives the copyright holder exclusive rights, the author/creator is originally the copyright holder, but ownership of the copyright can be transfered to say a publisher.
Copyright gives the author exclusive rights over copying, they can attach other conditions (like money, only making 1 copy, not making it available) when they grant the rights to copy, but copyright is only supposed to be about copy rights... surprised ?
If the copyright agreement doesnt mention "making availabile" then copyright cant prohibit it.
But of course IANAL.
I was pretty upset about that that commerical as well, those damn 4WD's are everywhere, they are a menace !
Have you considered adding scripting support to eve-online ?
I consider WoW mods to make that game much more pleasurable to play, as eve-online is only my second MMORPG, i expected the same in eve-online.
Did you consider and reject the idea of supporting user scripting, or is it somthing you would like to happen but havent gotten around to it yet ?
1) using your distro's tools and packages.
If this doesnt work change distro's
2) from source code.
This should be fine as long as the user knows what hes doing and doesnt overwrite distro's files.
3) using 3rd party tools or packages.
Dont expect it to work, its a totally flawed concept, this method is for people who dont understand what a distro is, if it did there would be only 1 distribution. This is why LSB packages are doomed.
"such as by enabling people to rent content at a lower price than ownership"
Consumers don't get the opportunity to "own" media, consumers get no ownership rights at all, we cant resell, get a refund etc like you can with a TV you buy.
Consumers get usage rights as granted by the copyright holder, DRM makes it easier to restrict these usage rights which takes us further away from what they would call "ownership".
Smells like fud to me.
"Oh and you want to talk about balancing in Eve? Don't make me link all the "Nerf Amarr", "Boost Minmatar" and all the other threads involving balance between the races."
Dude, during your extensive time playing eve did you notice that you fly other race's ships, and you arent pigeon holed into a partiular style of play (healer/tank/dps/hydrid), in eve your character can progress in whatever direction you like.
"To make all 9 classes perfectly balanced is asking way too much"
You say it all here, you know WoW will never be balanced as its based on a broken design.
WoW has some major weaknesses as well.
- 2 years in and they still dont have class balance, it looks like they never will.
- Deadend skill progression system
Unless youve played eve-online you probably dont appreciate how broken aspects of WoW are.
IANAL.
If person X creates an original work, and person Y creates a derivative work (a patch to X's work), then both X and Y have full copyright control over their work.
If the copyright of X and Y's work are under a compatible licence they can be combined and released as a collective work, the copyright on the collective work i think is held by the person who does the release, however this is only a very weak type of copyright, and doesnt impede the copyright of the original or derivative work.
Now suppose evil corp violates the copyright licence, they have violated both X and Y's work, so each has the power to sue individually but only to resolve the issues with their own work, not the other persons.
Suppose evil corp knows its beaten and wants to settle, there is no one person they can settle with, so they have to reach agreement with 2 people instead of one. Now imagine that instead of there being just 2 copyright holders there were a thousand. As a collective the copyright holders have the power to make the problem go away so they have an extra bargaining chip.
Separating it into more cases just means the lawyers get more as there are more overheads.
But this is all academic as free software people hardly every sue for damages, they just want evil corp to stop being evil.
Another benefit of assigning copyright to an independent 3rd party is that if you ever wanted to sue of damages as a result of copyright infringement you need the concent of all the copyright holders.
In most open source projects you could never track down all the contributers, so it would be very difficult to sue for damages.
And if you have a group of a dozen programmers all working on a project then its a bigger ask to expect them all to sign the code over the project leader, rather than someone like FSF/FSFE
"You can't infringe on a copyright you already own."
The copyright holder is the only person who owns a copyrighted work, everyone else just licenses it.
There is no such thing as ownership rights for consumers of information, a license can be as restrictive as it wants.
"However, once you upload a single bit to the MPAA or another party, you have infringed upon the MPAA's right to be the sole distributer."
A single bit is not enough to claim copyright infringment, it would need to be enough to identify the content as being unique.
"a carbon tax would stagnate the economy at least a little"
Stagnate: To cease to flow; to be motionless
So the economy would be a little bit motionless ?
You could have said it would _slow_ the economy, less typing, and it even makes sense.
What happens is that your rockets get loaded a truck and an internet delivers those trucks to the server, its faster because your rockets are traveling en-mass.
Senator Ted Stephens started a rumor claiming that "the internet is not a big truck, its a series of tubes" dont listen to him, we all know rockets cant fly down tubes, they cant even steer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes
Yes, that was my intention.
I do think Microsoft/Gates has exploited the world through their monopoly (which is very anti-capitalist), but i dont claim that it was illegal, and i expect he will end it giving more than 10% of back, after all he gets no return on it when hes dead, and this way he gets to buy some respect.
"Bill Gates is possibly the most generous philanthropist on the planet."
Steal the world riches and your despised, give 10% of it back and your a hero.
I do see what you mean about editing and "Muhammad", its probably just as hard as trying to say something about Israel that doesnt have the blessing of Israel's government... there are extremists everywhere.
The only solution is to be objective, cite references, justify the materials importance, if it still doesnt fit, find a new page that is more appropriate.