and your gripe is with neither: your problem is that the insurance company does not have a good enough method to distribute the amount of risk to you, and in your particular case, you are personally less riskier than your category. since you are below average than your group, you're SOL. but this is not a gripe with profit or risk subsidies, it's a gripe with the bluntness of the statistical system used to build tiers of risk.
neither profit nor distributive risk assessment have anything to do (necessarily) with crappy calculations.
but i agree that we should have non-profit insurance, but for other reasons.
1.- saying that it is a privilege is not the same as saying that the state concedes privileges, as this is actually tautological. Given the state is an organization built by society to ensure some form of regulation that makes it possible to enjoy certain privileges to all, the existence of the state is a material necessity to the existence of those privileges, and saying that the state is the origin of those privileges is the same as saying that some tool is the origin of the product, when it's the other way around: the tool exists only in the extent in which it is useful to getting the product done. The same thing happens with the state: it exists solely to make the availability of privileges to all.
2.- you have to take into account the rather obvious material considerations that render all this libertarian rants senseless. To enjoy driving, you need a lot of social resources that enable you to do all things related to driving, from getting a car, to using roads, etc. to provide for this resources, we the people have decided to give some other authority to accomplish that which we need to "drive" and that we can not accomplish by ourselves, e g the state. Does this materiallity that makes the state necessary for the enjoying of some (you would say natural, i'm sure) privileges make the state the _origin_ of this privileges?
you have three choices here: 1.- no 2.- yes and the correct one: who fucking cares? this disctintion between the genealogical role of the state and the material role of the state is just a pile of idealistic, liberal (in the proper sense, go look it up), primitive and naive crap.
both points are very similar, but they are two distinct points, nevertheless.
(and don't even get me started on the idiocy of 'granting' privileges to the state. that's like saying that corporate personas have rights!)
--- "america: the only place in the world where 'liberal' means statist, and 'libertarian' means letting the poor die in the streets".
I call BS too. I had a BSOD with windows vista on a brand new dell notebook without any kind of HW failure.
Actually, it was rather funny, as i hadn't witnessed one for a long long time. I had to explain everything to my girlfriend, since i was laughing out loud, and she didn't even know what a BSOD was (she had a mac until very recently).
In any case, you are wrong. I've had BSOD without HW fails in windows XP and windows vista, and i've had HW fails in Linux without the whole system halting and needing a reboot.
I can confirm this. In the Institute of Neurosurgery here in my country, a GE mainframe used for control of a laparoscopic surgery machine runs windows. My mother in law commented just a couple of days ago, how she had witnessed an operation procedure having to be stoppepd and postponed (with the patient in the OR!) because an unexplainable BSOD with the machine that controlled the operating equipment.
Luckily, the surgeon hadn't yet begun the actual procedure and was just making preparations (moving veins aside, finding nervous tissue, etc). I can only imagine that if the BSOD had happened at a more critical moment in the operation, the story would have been far more bleaker, instead of anecdotal.
i agree with you, oil prices are the main cause of rises in prices in our countries, but on top of that, the monopolistic and protective practices of the agro-industry in countries like the US doesn't help.
This especulators you blame are i the oil market, AND the food market, so all in all, oil shortage, AND eco-fuel mania are to blame. both of them. and since Eco-fuel mania is driven by oil prices, in the end the cause it's always the fucking oil.
you lack a sense of magnitude. the effect of fair trade in stimulating exports from food producing countries is despicable*, and much much smaller form the opposite effect introduced by the enourmous subsidies that developed countries have for their own food production, and now for eco-fuels.
four crazy hippies are not to blame for the negative externalities of the efforts of your governments to protect corporate interests. Externalities that we end up paying.
Fair trade is a nuisance, an amusement, a little toy for hippies, it doesn't even get near of explaining the current rise in food prices.
* The word i'm looking for is despreciable. i don't know how you say it in imperial-speek
do you know where he lives? because hiding his house is one thing, but not disclosing his address to the first slashdot troll that asks to see his house in goolge earth doesn't sound as a terribly hipocrytic thing to me...
doom and doom2 were full of monster in tight compartments that were usually secret areas that you had to find, and then the monster would attack.
doom3 had areas that were tehcnically impossible to find, with monster in them that would not come out until a completely obvious and arbitrary trigger spawned.
sounds good enough for me, if the finite element stress analysis could be automatized from a 3d model.
I've never had any experience with structural analysis, but would it be too complicated to develop a tool that, taking a regular 3d model of stuff, could determine how the rep-rap parts could be built, and if that particular model can be built at all?
A friendly one, that is. one that required no prior knowledge of finite element stress analysis...
fair enough. being a subjective issue, i think we are all entitled to our opinions (we are talking about some guys intentions in regards to fear uncertainty and doubt, for tfsm's sake! it doesn't get any more subjective than that:P)
i agree in your premises, but not in your conclusion. true, it is an article to lawyers, but since it fails to distinguish between the restrictions to distribution and derivation and the restrictions to use, confuses the Affero with the normal GPL and introduces artificial differences between v3 and v2, and uses weasel words like "step in the ring", it sounds like FUD, particularly since this guy is allegedly an IP-legalese-god.
If you read TFA, you can easily assume an intention to cause Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in PHB's visions of the GPL and Open Source in general. hence the accusation.
Well, he either a.- does not understand the specific nature of the GPL or b.- is making a concerted and tricky attempt at discrediting the possibility of GPLed work use in commercial applications.
you post clarifies the point precisely, and it applies to TFA as well: the GPL does not contain any provision on USE of the software, only on derivative development and distribution, and that distinction is perfectly clear to anyone who even bothers to read the frickin' license. You are saying that the GPL has implications and that these implications become threats and that the only solution is to stop using gpled sotfware, or understand the restrictions that the GPL inmposes on the use, when there none. That is a lie, and you are either a lier, or an ignorant.
Por ultimo, y en una nota mas personal: no es culpa de nosotros los "zealots" que la gente no comprenda las sutilezas de la GPL, la diferencia que hay entre uso, distribucion y derivacion, y las necesidades que la GPL tiene de restringir ciertas derechos para la proteccion de la libertad. Que salgas con ese tipo de comentarios son el principal impedimento a una discusion razonable mediante la exposicion de argumentos, puesto que lo unico que se hace es recurrir a argumentos ad-hominem y otras falacias retoricas, de las que tu mensaje previo es una joya. y un excelente ejemplo de FUD y sus efectos en la opinion publica.
well, he doesn't make that distinction.
the proprietary characteristics of software that step into the ring with open source software are knocked out, unless the proprietary components are "separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the [open source] work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program." Losing proprietary rights can be significant because those rights are frequently essential for any company seeking to profit from differentiated high-tech products. There he jumped olimpically from "stepping into the ring" to losing propietary rights, even when he is quoting the exact conditions under which the "use" of GPLed work would waive some propietary rights.
The lack of that subtle distinction, in the written work of a reputed expert in IP issues is fishy and suspicious.
Its qualification as an intent to quantify risks do not make it less or more FUD. There's a difference between lawyers and judges that you fail to see: lawyers have clients. They interpret the law *in their clients favor*, particularly in this kind of opinion pieces where they have to show themselves off to potential clients in business journals.
This particular lawyer works for Wolf, Greenfield and Sachs, a firm that "for 81 years, Wolf Greenfield has protected and expanded the intellectual property rights of products and services", and he personally "is a shareholder and member of [their] Electrical & Computer Technologies, Licensing & Transactions, and Nanotechnology Groups. He has more than 14 years experience serving as in-house counsel for technology companies, and before joining the firm, served as Chief Intellectual Property Counsel for Teradyne for 10 years".
Just your typical defender of freedom, right?
i think it is naive to think that he being a lawyer and the GPL being a legal document make his opinion any more or less likely to be tainted with Big Biz Inc's interests.
Particularly since there are no rulings stating the exact reaches of the GPL, this is quite alarmist and, in my opinion, that would make it FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
but i'm affraid that you are making two different points as it were one:
1.- profit
2.- distributive risk assesment (to call it somehow, IANAIA*)
and your gripe is with neither: your problem is that the insurance company does not have a good enough method to distribute the amount of risk to you, and in your particular case, you are personally less riskier than your category. since you are below average than your group, you're SOL. but this is not a gripe with profit or risk subsidies, it's a gripe with the bluntness of the statistical system used to build tiers of risk.
neither profit nor distributive risk assessment have anything to do (necessarily) with crappy calculations.
but i agree that we should have non-profit insurance, but for other reasons.
* insurance agent?
you are missing two critical points:
1.- saying that it is a privilege is not the same as saying that the state concedes privileges, as this is actually tautological. Given the state is an organization built by society to ensure some form of regulation that makes it possible to enjoy certain privileges to all, the existence of the state is a material necessity to the existence of those privileges, and saying that the state is the origin of those privileges is the same as saying that some tool is the origin of the product, when it's the other way around: the tool exists only in the extent in which it is useful to getting the product done. The same thing happens with the state: it exists solely to make the availability of privileges to all.
2.- you have to take into account the rather obvious material considerations that render all this libertarian rants senseless. To enjoy driving, you need a lot of social resources that enable you to do all things related to driving, from getting a car, to using roads, etc. to provide for this resources, we the people have decided to give some other authority to accomplish that which we need to "drive" and that we can not accomplish by ourselves, e g the state. Does this materiallity that makes the state necessary for the enjoying of some (you would say natural, i'm sure) privileges make the state the _origin_ of this privileges?
you have three choices here: 1.- no 2.- yes and the correct one: who fucking cares? this disctintion between the genealogical role of the state and the material role of the state is just a pile of idealistic, liberal (in the proper sense, go look it up), primitive and naive crap.
both points are very similar, but they are two distinct points, nevertheless.
(and don't even get me started on the idiocy of 'granting' privileges to the state. that's like saying that corporate personas have rights!)
---
"america: the only place in the world where 'liberal' means statist, and 'libertarian' means letting the poor die in the streets".
damn you're stupid.
For some reasson, i've always had this terrible fear of catching parkinson...
but alzheimer is creepier, specially for those around you.
i believe OpenBSD would lie to the MoBo telling it it is some flavor of windows, wouldn't fail to install, and TdR wouldn't give a shit about it.
but that scheme fails one you have one OS manufacturer that hw vendors *need* to support actively trying to fuck the standard.
yeah, so? an OS has to be robust *because* users make mistakes.
The point is that windows allows those mistakes to cripple and halt the system, when well-made OSes are able to recover from such mistakes.
That's a big part of what stability means in this context.
I call BS too. I had a BSOD with windows vista on a brand new dell notebook without any kind of HW failure.
Actually, it was rather funny, as i hadn't witnessed one for a long long time. I had to explain everything to my girlfriend, since i was laughing out loud, and she didn't even know what a BSOD was (she had a mac until very recently).
In any case, you are wrong. I've had BSOD without HW fails in windows XP and windows vista, and i've had HW fails in Linux without the whole system halting and needing a reboot.
I can confirm this. In the Institute of Neurosurgery here in my country, a GE mainframe used for control of a laparoscopic surgery machine runs windows. My mother in law commented just a couple of days ago, how she had witnessed an operation procedure having to be stoppepd and postponed (with the patient in the OR!) because an unexplainable BSOD with the machine that controlled the operating equipment.
Luckily, the surgeon hadn't yet begun the actual procedure and was just making preparations (moving veins aside, finding nervous tissue, etc). I can only imagine that if the BSOD had happened at a more critical moment in the operation, the story would have been far more bleaker, instead of anecdotal.
actually, it's the same thing, only you use the camera as the controller.
Add a couple accelerometers and bluetooth to any regular webcam, and you got yourself a wiimote.
and the whole point is that it is not in the interest of trolltech to stop releasing gpl versions, because that makes the comercial version worthless.
it's a self-restraining clause. Or at least, it can have that reading.
i agree with you, oil prices are the main cause of rises in prices in our countries, but on top of that, the monopolistic and protective practices of the agro-industry in countries like the US doesn't help.
This especulators you blame are i the oil market, AND the food market, so all in all, oil shortage, AND eco-fuel mania are to blame. both of them. and since Eco-fuel mania is driven by oil prices, in the end the cause it's always the fucking oil.
you lack a sense of magnitude. the effect of fair trade in stimulating exports from food producing countries is despicable*, and much much smaller form the opposite effect introduced by the enourmous subsidies that developed countries have for their own food production, and now for eco-fuels.
four crazy hippies are not to blame for the negative externalities of the efforts of your governments to protect corporate interests. Externalities that we end up paying.
Fair trade is a nuisance, an amusement, a little toy for hippies, it doesn't even get near of explaining the current rise in food prices.
* The word i'm looking for is despreciable. i don't know how you say it in imperial-speek
do you know where he lives? because hiding his house is one thing, but not disclosing his address to the first slashdot troll that asks to see his house in goolge earth doesn't sound as a terribly hipocrytic thing to me...
no it didn't. not in the same sense at least.
doom and doom2 were full of monster in tight compartments that were usually secret areas that you had to find, and then the monster would attack.
doom3 had areas that were tehcnically impossible to find, with monster in them that would not come out until a completely obvious and arbitrary trigger spawned.
the difference should be clear now.
mod parent up! great story!
this is him.
sounds good enough for me, if the finite element stress analysis could be automatized from a 3d model.
I've never had any experience with structural analysis, but would it be too complicated to develop a tool that, taking a regular 3d model of stuff, could determine how the rep-rap parts could be built, and if that particular model can be built at all?
A friendly one, that is. one that required no prior knowledge of finite element stress analysis...
business models that are based on selling software, no using it, so not only true in theory, but in all the extent of practice also.
fair enough. being a subjective issue, i think we are all entitled to our opinions (we are talking about some guys intentions in regards to fear uncertainty and doubt, for tfsm's sake! it doesn't get any more subjective than that :P)
that's what the affero license is for.
i agree in your premises, but not in your conclusion. true, it is an article to lawyers, but since it fails to distinguish between the restrictions to distribution and derivation and the restrictions to use, confuses the Affero with the normal GPL and introduces artificial differences between v3 and v2, and uses weasel words like "step in the ring", it sounds like FUD, particularly since this guy is allegedly an IP-legalese-god.
If you read TFA, you can easily assume an intention to cause Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in PHB's visions of the GPL and Open Source in general. hence the accusation.
Well, he either a.- does not understand the specific nature of the GPL or b.- is making a concerted and tricky attempt at discrediting the possibility of GPLed work use in commercial applications.
you post clarifies the point precisely, and it applies to TFA as well: the GPL does not contain any provision on USE of the software, only on derivative development and distribution, and that distinction is perfectly clear to anyone who even bothers to read the frickin' license. You are saying that the GPL has implications and that these implications become threats and that the only solution is to stop using gpled sotfware, or understand the restrictions that the GPL inmposes on the use, when there none. That is a lie, and you are either a lier, or an ignorant.
Por ultimo, y en una nota mas personal: no es culpa de nosotros los "zealots" que la gente no comprenda las sutilezas de la GPL, la diferencia que hay entre uso, distribucion y derivacion, y las necesidades que la GPL tiene de restringir ciertas derechos para la proteccion de la libertad. Que salgas con ese tipo de comentarios son el principal impedimento a una discusion razonable mediante la exposicion de argumentos, puesto que lo unico que se hace es recurrir a argumentos ad-hominem y otras falacias retoricas, de las que tu mensaje previo es una joya. y un excelente ejemplo de FUD y sus efectos en la opinion publica.
The lack of that subtle distinction, in the written work of a reputed expert in IP issues is fishy and suspicious.
Its qualification as an intent to quantify risks do not make it less or more FUD. There's a difference between lawyers and judges that you fail to see: lawyers have clients. They interpret the law *in their clients favor*, particularly in this kind of opinion pieces where they have to show themselves off to potential clients in business journals.
This particular lawyer works for Wolf, Greenfield and Sachs, a firm that "for 81 years, Wolf Greenfield has protected and expanded the intellectual property rights of products and services", and he personally "is a shareholder and member of [their] Electrical & Computer Technologies, Licensing & Transactions, and Nanotechnology Groups. He has more than 14 years experience serving as in-house counsel for technology companies, and before joining the firm, served as Chief Intellectual Property Counsel for Teradyne for 10 years".
Just your typical defender of freedom, right?
i think it is naive to think that he being a lawyer and the GPL being a legal document make his opinion any more or less likely to be tainted with Big Biz Inc's interests.
Particularly since there are no rulings stating the exact reaches of the GPL, this is quite alarmist and, in my opinion, that would make it FUD.