My god, if Ronald Reagan ran today, you people would moan he is a socialist.
The Republicans NEVER had a focus on states rights. Read your history books: they were arguably founded to oppose the idea. Further, "states rights" brought us such great things in the past... like slavery and civil war.
What really happened was that the Republicans made a hard-right turn around the 50s and 60s, and the Democrats stayed where they were. You can see this very process happening now: compare the platform of GWB in his first term to any of the jokers trying to get the nomination now. Seem a little batshit by comparison? That's because they ARE. The Republicans are sliding far past their previous positions, into full on Fascism (read the definitions and tell me that is not the same underlying philosophy with a straight face).
Meanwhile, the Democrats have been taken over by "those looking for European style socialism"? What utter bullshit. The Democrats wanted to pass a healthcare reform bill to save the government money and the Republicans cried about "socialism." What about Social Security and such things? Oh, wait, they'll never criticize those programs, because a large percentage of their votes come from Social Security recipients. I can assure you, as someone with a clue about Europe, the Democrats are so far from "European style socialism" that most Germans and British voters would have a hard time even accepting their positions as fitting the conservative train of thought.
Suggesting states should have powers instead is simply absurd. States are even more flawed than the federal government. Further, the federal government must protect citizens from their states, as history shows. The idea of states rights ceased to be national ideology when it became apparent that states would neglect civil rights whenever it suited them. This was over two hundred years ago. Now look at people: the only election anyone cares about is presidential, even though the president has essentially no power to do anything. Pull people off the street, and I would be shocked if even one out of a hundred could name their governor. This is the world you advocate "states rights" in with a straight face? Please, don't kid us. You know it is flawed and you simply want the federal government to stop trying to prevent the abuse of minority rights and all those other things you can't stand; essentially, the same shady underpinnings of "states rights" since the concept was invented to allow the states to get out of paying their taxes.
You are right that neither party is looking out for your interests, but at the same time shamelessly try to peddle your failed "states rights" ideology at the cost of all facts. Neither US party takes us down the "progressive path," and it is not the intent of either to do so. Both are corporatist and guided primarily by bribery. The answer, however, is NOT to try to shift us FURTHER to the 19th century thinking that resulted in the current failed system. We need to end the bribery and hold corporations accountable; that means regulation, much more than you are comfortable with. The government exists for the people, it ought to be serving the people, not the corporations. I am sure you'd like to cry socialism at that statement, but that is the truth. If you cannot see what the real problem is, you need to get some global and historical perspective on the ideas you advocate. Otherwise, you're just tossing around words which you do not understand the meaning of.
It is quite simple, really. If it wouldn't hurt their business, Apple would certainly impose a lower limit on prices. They get a cut of every purchase - say 1 cent an App over a few million users... you do the math. However, this idea would not work out economically, as it would hurt their image (as far as that is possible with Apple). Hence, they would do it if they could get away with it.
Apple, having created the walled garden model as it exists today, having made shady deals with the RIAA, suing competitors, etc... that Apple. Please do not act as if they would not put a lower bound on their profit if they could. It is just not rational.
Then you're a fool. There are quite a many cases where things are given for free (if you want to argue "there is no free lunch" that's different). I remember last election, the different candidates were giving out everything from bottled water to hotdogs.
Your thought is too narrow and you automatically want to think whatever justifies your argument. Something being free does not make it dangerous; open source is not dangerous because it is free, not is a free "app" dangerous because it is free. So really, I don't see your point. If you can't deal with a free market, get out of the market.
1. Food is a material thing. It costs money to create inherently, and because it is physical, it cannot (usually) be created in one's spare time. This does not apply to software, when can and is created for essentially free, and then distributed to the rest of the world at no cost. Unlike beverages, there is no cost to recoup, so it can be practically distributed for free. Any profit can be a gain.
2. Your analogy ignores that free options exist. Should I pay for water if there is a man handing out free water a block down? I doubt you would. This article says we should arrest the man down the street in order to protect the water industry; that there is something inherently wrong with getting water for free; that we should always expect to pay for something. I disagree with that and as I said, Linux proves it doesn't have to work that way.
Actually, I don't drink coffee. I also don't see why I should pay if there is a free alternative, and certainly not why free alternatives should be done away with to encourage me to pay people what they probably don't deserve (as evident by the fact they aren't getting it now).
Yet the article complains that people are not giving them compensation, and instead prefer things to be free; so Apple should actually prevent things from being free. Am I the only one seeing a problem here?
As a long-time Linux user, one of the best points is that everything comes without strings attached. I would say "the idea that apps should cost something" is questionable at best, but leave it to Apple and their users to advocate it.
They share some of the blame for hiring the guy to be their public representative. I wouldn't hire a lawyer without ever having met them and then complain when I end up in jail because it turns out he was a psychopath.
That said, the fault of the company only extends as far as extreme negligence (plus however much they caused the delays in the first place) and it is ultimately this asshole who should feel the pain, but there is such a thing as responsibility.
No, it isn't. We've been working on those two for several decades now and have made very little progress. I don't think we should keep waiting and relying on oil and coal until those may, eventually, become practical. We need a real solution that works now.
"the least polluting energy we have is solar wind and hydro"
If you ignore how the actual plants are produced. Hint: solar isn't very clean to build on the scale it has to be to work. Hydro is likely the most dangerous and destroys environments. Wind is extremely expensive and makes large tracts of land unusable. And finally, none of them are actually answers. Solar and wind are not reliable enough and never will be with out level of technology, and that is unlikely to change soon. Hydro can only be built in some places and usually is not for the aforementioned reasons. Nuclear is the safest, cleanest, and cheapest option we have. We need to stop listening to fearmongers and figure out how to make it work right. Coal and oil are power until that happens. Solar and wind are pipedreams.
The answer is that money, and businesses, as they run on money, have no place in politics at all. The system we have now is institutionalized bribery. "Vote with your wallet" is not an answer; the answer is change the nature of corporations in this country to discourage corruption and control of markets.
"And it's not dishonest for the sake of some greater good either, don't act like this is some righteous resistance against an oppressive educational system. It doesn't matter if the educational system is screwed up or not. Cheating is just being dishonest so one can be lazy."
I can see you're making no effort to go and define that line I talked about.
"Not willing to put in the hard work, why do you think they deserve the better jobs then?"
I don't think they don't deserve the jobs for failing to go through the education process. The problem is you assume they have to in order to get them. I don't see much value in the education system as it stands, so I don't see much value in that "hard work." If you're going to spend a huge amount of effort on something pointless, that's not necessarily a good trait.
"I would, with 100% certainty, hire a dropout before I would hire a graduate whom I knew had cheated."
With the statistics on how many people cheat - you are probably better off hiring a dropout or someone who never went in any case, if that's how you feel.
I would rather hire a person who did exactly the work necessary to get what they want, than someone willing to spend several years doing work they did not need to. There is a saying that good programmers are lazy and I think it is true. Unfortunately, I am probably in the second group, since I seem to do things with no purpose and yet put great thought into it.
"So you don't mind when non copyright holders abuse the software you write or contribute to?"
Simple answer would be no. Complicated one is that I do not care so much about what people do with my work, so much as I care that it isn't being used in ways to remove others' rights. For example, if I was to write some sort of media backend, I might very well not want Apple to take it, insert DRM, and use it in iTunes. Similarly, I am writing a science fiction book: I don't care about people reading it, but I don't want an MPAA studio to film it and then sue people if they pirate it. I am willing to give up the power to control what I make if copyright goes away - but I am not giving it entirely up in the interim. You might oppose standing armies, but it is stupid to advocate a large country have none, because everyone else does.
'The GPL doesn't "turn the system on itself"'
That is an opinion, not a fact. I consider that it does by its semi-viral nature, encouraging others to use the GPL or similar licenses. It changes the nature of copyright by complicating it for others. Given, with EULAs and such, the limitations of the GPL are entirely permissive; but I still think they subvert what copyright has become. Look at my above statements: I do not care what users do (the GPL lets users to about anything), I care about how it is reused by others in ways that might abuse the end users.
"GPL requires copyright to work."
Which is always the argument as to why you cannot oppose copyright and use the GPL, and it is entirely pointless an argument. Copyright is still here. When it isn't and the GPL doesn't work, I won't shed any tears for either.
"As for your claim that your positions do not conflict, they most certainly do--you are in favor of the abolition of copyright, yet you are also in favor of a copyright license that requires copyright law to have any legal power. Without copyright, the GPL would have no legal power and would be unenforceable."
Really? That's amazing. You must know my position better than I do - since that is obviously not what I said:
"I oppose the existence of copyright and am for its immediate and total abolition. I support the GPL until that happens to turn the system on itself and avoid allowing copyright holders to abuse software I write or contribute to."
I don't know how you got what you claim I think out of that, so I am inclined to say you're lying about what I said in order to attack my position as a stawman, and I don't take kindly to that. The rest of your post is basically the same, so you're full of shit. Go away.
I was misremembering the GPL2 while reading the GPL3 (somehow missed that fact). However, it is still irrelevant in this case because PHP comes as source.
People cry about groupthink, which is one thing; but then people like you cry slashdot doesn't follow its "groupthink" on all possible matters in the way they expected slashdot to follow it. Essentially, you're complaining slashdot is not the stawman you keep making it. The fact slashdot has people with opposing views on it is not a flaw. The fact slashdot has people on it with a more nuanced view on the matter than outright-shameless-pirate or RIAA-media-executive is not a flaw. I would say the problem is cognitive dissonance in the people who keep complaining about slashdot, not in slashdot itself.
Before you complain about my signature; I oppose the existence of copyright and am for its immediate and total abolition. I support the GPL until that happens to turn the system on itself and avoid allowing copyright holders to abuse software I write or contribute to. These positions do not conflict, but to some people, they are taken to in order to complain.
Slashdot Mirror
Satan is getting out his snow shoes as we speak.
My god, if Ronald Reagan ran today, you people would moan he is a socialist.
The Republicans NEVER had a focus on states rights. Read your history books: they were arguably founded to oppose the idea. Further, "states rights" brought us such great things in the past... like slavery and civil war.
What really happened was that the Republicans made a hard-right turn around the 50s and 60s, and the Democrats stayed where they were. You can see this very process happening now: compare the platform of GWB in his first term to any of the jokers trying to get the nomination now. Seem a little batshit by comparison? That's because they ARE. The Republicans are sliding far past their previous positions, into full on Fascism (read the definitions and tell me that is not the same underlying philosophy with a straight face).
Meanwhile, the Democrats have been taken over by "those looking for European style socialism"? What utter bullshit. The Democrats wanted to pass a healthcare reform bill to save the government money and the Republicans cried about "socialism." What about Social Security and such things? Oh, wait, they'll never criticize those programs, because a large percentage of their votes come from Social Security recipients. I can assure you, as someone with a clue about Europe, the Democrats are so far from "European style socialism" that most Germans and British voters would have a hard time even accepting their positions as fitting the conservative train of thought.
Suggesting states should have powers instead is simply absurd. States are even more flawed than the federal government. Further, the federal government must protect citizens from their states, as history shows. The idea of states rights ceased to be national ideology when it became apparent that states would neglect civil rights whenever it suited them. This was over two hundred years ago. Now look at people: the only election anyone cares about is presidential, even though the president has essentially no power to do anything. Pull people off the street, and I would be shocked if even one out of a hundred could name their governor. This is the world you advocate "states rights" in with a straight face? Please, don't kid us. You know it is flawed and you simply want the federal government to stop trying to prevent the abuse of minority rights and all those other things you can't stand; essentially, the same shady underpinnings of "states rights" since the concept was invented to allow the states to get out of paying their taxes.
You are right that neither party is looking out for your interests, but at the same time shamelessly try to peddle your failed "states rights" ideology at the cost of all facts. Neither US party takes us down the "progressive path," and it is not the intent of either to do so. Both are corporatist and guided primarily by bribery. The answer, however, is NOT to try to shift us FURTHER to the 19th century thinking that resulted in the current failed system. We need to end the bribery and hold corporations accountable; that means regulation, much more than you are comfortable with. The government exists for the people, it ought to be serving the people, not the corporations. I am sure you'd like to cry socialism at that statement, but that is the truth. If you cannot see what the real problem is, you need to get some global and historical perspective on the ideas you advocate. Otherwise, you're just tossing around words which you do not understand the meaning of.
Congress is pure genius compared to the vast majority of American voters.
It is quite simple, really. If it wouldn't hurt their business, Apple would certainly impose a lower limit on prices. They get a cut of every purchase - say 1 cent an App over a few million users... you do the math. However, this idea would not work out economically, as it would hurt their image (as far as that is possible with Apple). Hence, they would do it if they could get away with it.
Apple, having created the walled garden model as it exists today, having made shady deals with the RIAA, suing competitors, etc... that Apple. Please do not act as if they would not put a lower bound on their profit if they could. It is just not rational.
Then you're a fool. There are quite a many cases where things are given for free (if you want to argue "there is no free lunch" that's different). I remember last election, the different candidates were giving out everything from bottled water to hotdogs.
Your thought is too narrow and you automatically want to think whatever justifies your argument. Something being free does not make it dangerous; open source is not dangerous because it is free, not is a free "app" dangerous because it is free. So really, I don't see your point. If you can't deal with a free market, get out of the market.
That is what TFA is arguing, and what I am sure Apple would do if they could get away with it.
1. Food is a material thing. It costs money to create inherently, and because it is physical, it cannot (usually) be created in one's spare time. This does not apply to software, when can and is created for essentially free, and then distributed to the rest of the world at no cost. Unlike beverages, there is no cost to recoup, so it can be practically distributed for free. Any profit can be a gain.
2. Your analogy ignores that free options exist. Should I pay for water if there is a man handing out free water a block down? I doubt you would. This article says we should arrest the man down the street in order to protect the water industry; that there is something inherently wrong with getting water for free; that we should always expect to pay for something. I disagree with that and as I said, Linux proves it doesn't have to work that way.
It's also a big leap to go and say "volunteering should be illegal because it deprives the people who want to do the job for money."
Actually, I don't drink coffee. I also don't see why I should pay if there is a free alternative, and certainly not why free alternatives should be done away with to encourage me to pay people what they probably don't deserve (as evident by the fact they aren't getting it now).
Yet the article complains that people are not giving them compensation, and instead prefer things to be free; so Apple should actually prevent things from being free. Am I the only one seeing a problem here?
As a long-time Linux user, one of the best points is that everything comes without strings attached. I would say "the idea that apps should cost something" is questionable at best, but leave it to Apple and their users to advocate it.
Because you've never said anything like that after dealing with a complete asshole.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
They share some of the blame for hiring the guy to be their public representative. I wouldn't hire a lawyer without ever having met them and then complain when I end up in jail because it turns out he was a psychopath.
That said, the fault of the company only extends as far as extreme negligence (plus however much they caused the delays in the first place) and it is ultimately this asshole who should feel the pain, but there is such a thing as responsibility.
No, it isn't. We've been working on those two for several decades now and have made very little progress. I don't think we should keep waiting and relying on oil and coal until those may, eventually, become practical. We need a real solution that works now.
You have to? Or you do because [irrational excuse]?
We know how to do it right technically. Politically, there is work to be done.
"the least polluting energy we have is solar wind and hydro"
If you ignore how the actual plants are produced. Hint: solar isn't very clean to build on the scale it has to be to work. Hydro is likely the most dangerous and destroys environments. Wind is extremely expensive and makes large tracts of land unusable. And finally, none of them are actually answers. Solar and wind are not reliable enough and never will be with out level of technology, and that is unlikely to change soon. Hydro can only be built in some places and usually is not for the aforementioned reasons. Nuclear is the safest, cleanest, and cheapest option we have. We need to stop listening to fearmongers and figure out how to make it work right. Coal and oil are power until that happens. Solar and wind are pipedreams.
The answer is that money, and businesses, as they run on money, have no place in politics at all. The system we have now is institutionalized bribery. "Vote with your wallet" is not an answer; the answer is change the nature of corporations in this country to discourage corruption and control of markets.
"And it's not dishonest for the sake of some greater good either, don't act like this is some righteous resistance against an oppressive educational system. It doesn't matter if the educational system is screwed up or not. Cheating is just being dishonest so one can be lazy."
I can see you're making no effort to go and define that line I talked about.
"Not willing to put in the hard work, why do you think they deserve the better jobs then?"
I don't think they don't deserve the jobs for failing to go through the education process. The problem is you assume they have to in order to get them. I don't see much value in the education system as it stands, so I don't see much value in that "hard work." If you're going to spend a huge amount of effort on something pointless, that's not necessarily a good trait.
"I would, with 100% certainty, hire a dropout before I would hire a graduate whom I knew had cheated."
With the statistics on how many people cheat - you are probably better off hiring a dropout or someone who never went in any case, if that's how you feel.
I would rather hire a person who did exactly the work necessary to get what they want, than someone willing to spend several years doing work they did not need to. There is a saying that good programmers are lazy and I think it is true. Unfortunately, I am probably in the second group, since I seem to do things with no purpose and yet put great thought into it.
"So you don't mind when non copyright holders abuse the software you write or contribute to?"
Simple answer would be no. Complicated one is that I do not care so much about what people do with my work, so much as I care that it isn't being used in ways to remove others' rights. For example, if I was to write some sort of media backend, I might very well not want Apple to take it, insert DRM, and use it in iTunes. Similarly, I am writing a science fiction book: I don't care about people reading it, but I don't want an MPAA studio to film it and then sue people if they pirate it. I am willing to give up the power to control what I make if copyright goes away - but I am not giving it entirely up in the interim. You might oppose standing armies, but it is stupid to advocate a large country have none, because everyone else does.
'The GPL doesn't "turn the system on itself"'
That is an opinion, not a fact. I consider that it does by its semi-viral nature, encouraging others to use the GPL or similar licenses. It changes the nature of copyright by complicating it for others. Given, with EULAs and such, the limitations of the GPL are entirely permissive; but I still think they subvert what copyright has become. Look at my above statements: I do not care what users do (the GPL lets users to about anything), I care about how it is reused by others in ways that might abuse the end users.
"GPL requires copyright to work."
Which is always the argument as to why you cannot oppose copyright and use the GPL, and it is entirely pointless an argument. Copyright is still here. When it isn't and the GPL doesn't work, I won't shed any tears for either.
All you can do is attack stawmen with hyperbole. I bet you'll cry about groupthink when you're modded down...
"As for your claim that your positions do not conflict, they most certainly do--you are in favor of the abolition of copyright, yet you are also in favor of a copyright license that requires copyright law to have any legal power. Without copyright, the GPL would have no legal power and would be unenforceable."
Really? That's amazing. You must know my position better than I do - since that is obviously not what I said:
"I oppose the existence of copyright and am for its immediate and total abolition. I support the GPL until that happens to turn the system on itself and avoid allowing copyright holders to abuse software I write or contribute to."
I don't know how you got what you claim I think out of that, so I am inclined to say you're lying about what I said in order to attack my position as a stawman, and I don't take kindly to that. The rest of your post is basically the same, so you're full of shit. Go away.
As a note: that was the GPL3. However, the clause is almost entirely unmodified (as #1) under the GPL2. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
I was misremembering the GPL2 while reading the GPL3 (somehow missed that fact). However, it is still irrelevant in this case because PHP comes as source.
People cry about groupthink, which is one thing; but then people like you cry slashdot doesn't follow its "groupthink" on all possible matters in the way they expected slashdot to follow it. Essentially, you're complaining slashdot is not the stawman you keep making it. The fact slashdot has people with opposing views on it is not a flaw. The fact slashdot has people on it with a more nuanced view on the matter than outright-shameless-pirate or RIAA-media-executive is not a flaw. I would say the problem is cognitive dissonance in the people who keep complaining about slashdot, not in slashdot itself.
Before you complain about my signature; I oppose the existence of copyright and am for its immediate and total abolition. I support the GPL until that happens to turn the system on itself and avoid allowing copyright holders to abuse software I write or contribute to. These positions do not conflict, but to some people, they are taken to in order to complain.