You can call "bullshit", but that doesn't make you correct.
A RedHat 5.2 machine installs with NFS running by default, and with a version of rpc.statd that is remotely exploitable. Wonder how I know this? *grin*
Sure. Your original comment asked 'Would you ask an author to give away
his books for free?' , clearly in the 'free beer' sense.
Not sure what you mean. Software is unlike books in at least one
significant respect (cost of production) and therefore the analogy is
false.
I can type a book into ViM just like my code. I can then make it available
on my website, bittorrent, P2p, etc. You can download it, share it, etc.
The only significant difference between it and code is that it probably
won't compile and run...
How is this not like software?
You are implying that their expectation (to be paid) is relevant to
whether they SHOULD be paid.
Actually, I was implying they won't work unless they get paid. Subtle
difference. Many people need money for shelter and food.
Ok, so you accept that it's perfectly possible to make a living through
FSW. Good!
It's possible to make money teaching penguins to tap-dance. So what? That
doesn't mean it will be successful.
Now - given that FSW is less bad than non-FSW (as the users have more
rights), it follows that if one CAN do something that is less bad than an
alternative, one is morally compelled to act that way - or shrug one's
shoulders and say 'well, I could be doing less harm in the world than I am
doing, but (I just don't care | don't believe it is important enough |
other reasons for producing nonFSW)."
This is an *odd* philosophy that rather implies "perfect scenarios."
You're assuming that making money on FSW is just as *easy* and profitable
as with closed source. Otherwise you're asking the person to go out of
their way, and possibly bankrupt themselves and employees, for the "greater
good."
I diagree that one has such a duty. If one can do good with no risk
to themself or income then I would agree that they have the duty to do
good. But to ask the person to risk their own livelihood for others is
asking too much. This may be where we disagree.
From what I've seen, it's more difficult to build a business around FSW.
Especially certain types of software (products). Thus you ask that others
go out of their way and risk personal loss so that others may have more
"rights" with regard to their software.
Of course my argument assumes a greater amount of risk involved in an open
source product than a closed source product. I don't see much debate here
though. If there were less risk, then Open Source companies would be doing
great and be putting closed source companies out of business on a daily
basis.
Sounds like that would all help with the dust... But moisture? In an un-airconditiond and un-heated environment, moisture on humid days is going to build up either way, wouldn't it?
I'm guessing the moisture would have a worse effect on, say, a monitor than dust would...
I see you have the average slashdot idea that "everybody must be just like you, so anybody who isn't must be nuts."
Sounds like you make good money, and live spartanly to live within your means. Good for you. Not everyone makes as much as you.
And cutting back a 'little bit' doesn't help that much. It can take a *long* time to build up that much savings. Do you have a mortgage? Car loan? Student loan? Heating bill? Hot water bill? etc.? Ever had those go up without getting a raise for a couple years?
Myself, I just had my mortgage go up nearly $300/mo because of taxes. That's not an "emergency" charge either. That'll be with me for at least a year...
I'm betting you've been very lucky so far to be so cocky.
And anyone who is condesending like you has been incredibly lucky and not needed to acrue a bit of credit card debt.
BTW, not all personal crisis involve "health." A furnace breaking, hot water tank bursting, minor flood damage, etc. can all force somebody to acrue some debt. But that's just the tip of the iceburg. Auto damage not covered by insurance (tires, damage up to deductable), rise in heating prices, and a number of things I'm not even thinking of.
confuses Free beer with free speech;
Umn. No. It doesn't. I'm well familiar with the difference. Would you care to explain why you think I confuse the two?
argues by analogy (books != software);
Which is not by itself wrong...
uses the fact that people expect something to happen to justify it above alternatives;
No it doesn't, perhaps you misunderstood me.
seems to make all the classic troll/misapprehensions about not being able to make a living with Free software.
No, I don't. But you seem to be making the classic assumption that one *must* give away code for Free/free/gratis/libre.
Thanks for playing
Thanks for not paying attention.
The idea that 'all software must be Free (as in speech)' is a strange one. If *you* think your software should be free, fine. But to declare that all developers must make their source code available for free is stupid. Many types of software do not support the Free Software model of making money (through support et al) as well as others.
Obscenity isn't censored completely, just regulated on certain mediums. You are free to walk into a porn shop and pickup something that most *certainly* will not be shown at noon on Fox.
Most people in the USA agree that porn on the cartoon network at 9AM is a bad thing. This we allow for regulation in this area.
Yes the US is a bit puritan when it comes to obscenity. But political speech is as free as it's ever been. Everything from Limbaugh to Franken.
You know, when somebody says "I live in a free country" you don't have to assume they mean "there are no laws and I'm free to do what I want." You *can* take things with a reasonable amount of common sense...
My *point*, which you would have gotten had you not been to busy nit-picking one sentence, is that a United States Citizen is called an American. How is this difficult? USian is a fake word made up by people pretending to be intellecual about North America and South America. They seem to forget that we are not the US, but rather the USA. Nobody refers to Canadians as Americans. Nobody refers to brazilians as Americans. Somtimes "South American" maybe, or "North American" for folks from the USA or Canada.
Is this realy that difficult? Would you appreciate being called a UKian just because I thought it made more sense to me?
For instance, a Native American could call himself an American. But what does the recent imigrant call himself?
Americans? Like they always have?
Basicly, the inhabitants of 2 continents are tired of being wrapped up with the likes of the USians.
Seriously? I thought most people were intelligent enough to know that *nobody* in Brazil calls themselves "American."
Your "logic" is stupid, irrational, and flies in the face of 200 years of history.
Basically your philosophy here is that you call people whatever the fuck you want to. Fine. But just be clear about it. It's your problem, not the problem of the people you are talking about.
Though the AC has his history a little messed up, he does make a point. It's "North America" and "South America" for the continent names. No continent is ever called "America." I've heard "North Americans" used for both US and Canada, and "South Americans" for those on that continent. But "American" is somebody from the United States of America.
Well. I don't like the word "English" for people from The United Kingdom. So I shall just call them UKians.
Who cares what you like? It's what the people call themselves. I've never heard anybody use "American" to refer to anybody not from the United States of America. You're from Canada? You're Canadian. You're from Mexico? You're Mexican. How is this difficult?
When did I get to a country where guilt is decided by the media? This guy will get a trial. The DA will present proof. If 12 people are convinced, he will be punished. Then they will decide how much.
No, I do not personally have proof. I was just stating the the difference is intent. People are comparing this to the fucking Sun for crying out loud.
They could claim this upon re-entering their own country. But since they're *illegal* in the first place, they shouldn't even be here to pay those taxes...
Illegals have lately fallen between the proverbial cracks. They get many benefits of society, without much of the tax burden (many work under the table, get multiple fake social security numbers, etc). But they're *here*, and are 'sorta' citizens. I'm all for their deportation myself.
Did you read (ha ha ha) the same story I did? Up to 25 years. They don't say what the minimum he could get. If he was purpously trying to crash the plane, I be he'd get 25. Else if he was just fscking around (or did it by accident), like you and I suspect, he'll probably get off with a fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, never move to a country that has done anything you disagree with. Perhaps there's an island in the middle of nowhere you could live in?
Sounds like somebody has been drinking the slashdot KoolAid.
I fail to see how this relates to the topic of the article...
Because it doesn't moron. It relates to the comment I was responding to. Note the "Re" in the subject?
You can call "bullshit", but that doesn't make you correct.
A RedHat 5.2 machine installs with NFS running by default, and with a version of rpc.statd that is remotely exploitable. Wonder how I know this? *grin*
What makes you think this is so unlikely?
Sure. Your original comment asked 'Would you ask an author to give away his books for free?' , clearly in the 'free beer' sense.
Not sure what you mean. Software is unlike books in at least one significant respect (cost of production) and therefore the analogy is false.
I can type a book into ViM just like my code. I can then make it available on my website, bittorrent, P2p, etc. You can download it, share it, etc. The only significant difference between it and code is that it probably won't compile and run...
How is this not like software?
You are implying that their expectation (to be paid) is relevant to whether they SHOULD be paid.
Actually, I was implying they won't work unless they get paid. Subtle difference. Many people need money for shelter and food.
Ok, so you accept that it's perfectly possible to make a living through FSW. Good!
It's possible to make money teaching penguins to tap-dance. So what? That doesn't mean it will be successful.
Now - given that FSW is less bad than non-FSW (as the users have more rights), it follows that if one CAN do something that is less bad than an alternative, one is morally compelled to act that way - or shrug one's shoulders and say 'well, I could be doing less harm in the world than I am doing, but (I just don't care | don't believe it is important enough | other reasons for producing nonFSW)."
This is an *odd* philosophy that rather implies "perfect scenarios." You're assuming that making money on FSW is just as *easy* and profitable as with closed source. Otherwise you're asking the person to go out of their way, and possibly bankrupt themselves and employees, for the "greater good."
I diagree that one has such a duty. If one can do good with no risk to themself or income then I would agree that they have the duty to do good. But to ask the person to risk their own livelihood for others is asking too much. This may be where we disagree.
From what I've seen, it's more difficult to build a business around FSW. Especially certain types of software (products). Thus you ask that others go out of their way and risk personal loss so that others may have more "rights" with regard to their software.
Of course my argument assumes a greater amount of risk involved in an open source product than a closed source product. I don't see much debate here though. If there were less risk, then Open Source companies would be doing great and be putting closed source companies out of business on a daily basis.
I only said you need to do it.
You not only said this, but you said that anybody who had credit card debt was insane.
One area you are a typical slashdotter though. Arrogance. Don't assume there are "no excuses." There are plenty.
Sounds like that would all help with the dust... But moisture? In an un-airconditiond and un-heated environment, moisture on humid days is going to build up either way, wouldn't it?
I'm guessing the moisture would have a worse effect on, say, a monitor than dust would...
I see you have the average slashdot idea that "everybody must be just like you, so anybody who isn't must be nuts."
Sounds like you make good money, and live spartanly to live within your means. Good for you. Not everyone makes as much as you.
And cutting back a 'little bit' doesn't help that much. It can take a *long* time to build up that much savings. Do you have a mortgage? Car loan? Student loan? Heating bill? Hot water bill? etc.? Ever had those go up without getting a raise for a couple years?
Myself, I just had my mortgage go up nearly $300/mo because of taxes. That's not an "emergency" charge either. That'll be with me for at least a year...
I'm betting you've been very lucky so far to be so cocky.
And anyone who is condesending like you has been incredibly lucky and not needed to acrue a bit of credit card debt.
BTW, not all personal crisis involve "health." A furnace breaking, hot water tank bursting, minor flood damage, etc. can all force somebody to acrue some debt. But that's just the tip of the iceburg. Auto damage not covered by insurance (tires, damage up to deductable), rise in heating prices, and a number of things I'm not even thinking of.
How *dare* you judge people so quickly?
confuses Free beer with free speech;
Umn. No. It doesn't. I'm well familiar with the difference. Would you care to explain why you think I confuse the two?
argues by analogy (books != software);
Which is not by itself wrong...
uses the fact that people expect something to happen to justify it above alternatives;
No it doesn't, perhaps you misunderstood me.
seems to make all the classic troll/misapprehensions about not being able to make a living with Free software.
No, I don't. But you seem to be making the classic assumption that one *must* give away code for Free/free/gratis/libre.
Thanks for playing
Thanks for not paying attention.
The idea that 'all software must be Free (as in speech)' is a strange one. If *you* think your software should be free, fine. But to declare that all developers must make their source code available for free is stupid. Many types of software do not support the Free Software model of making money (through support et al) as well as others.
Obscenity isn't censored completely, just regulated on certain mediums. You are free to walk into a porn shop and pickup something that most *certainly* will not be shown at noon on Fox.
Most people in the USA agree that porn on the cartoon network at 9AM is a bad thing. This we allow for regulation in this area.
Yes the US is a bit puritan when it comes to obscenity. But political speech is as free as it's ever been. Everything from Limbaugh to Franken.
You know, when somebody says "I live in a free country" you don't have to assume they mean "there are no laws and I'm free to do what I want." You *can* take things with a reasonable amount of common sense...
Or do you recall any of them invading another country recently?
Yeah, because Iraq never invaded any other nations...
This must be the slow class...
My *point*, which you would have gotten had you not been to busy nit-picking one sentence, is that a United States Citizen is called an American. How is this difficult? USian is a fake word made up by people pretending to be intellecual about North America and South America. They seem to forget that we are not the US, but rather the USA. Nobody refers to Canadians as Americans. Nobody refers to brazilians as Americans. Somtimes "South American" maybe, or "North American" for folks from the USA or Canada.
Is this realy that difficult? Would you appreciate being called a UKian just because I thought it made more sense to me?
For instance, a Native American could call himself an American. But what does the recent imigrant call himself?
Americans? Like they always have?
Basicly, the inhabitants of 2 continents are tired of being wrapped up with the likes of the USians.
Seriously? I thought most people were intelligent enough to know that *nobody* in Brazil calls themselves "American."
Your "logic" is stupid, irrational, and flies in the face of 200 years of history.
Basically your philosophy here is that you call people whatever the fuck you want to. Fine. But just be clear about it. It's your problem, not the problem of the people you are talking about.
Though the AC has his history a little messed up, he does make a point. It's "North America" and "South America" for the continent names. No continent is ever called "America." I've heard "North Americans" used for both US and Canada, and "South Americans" for those on that continent. But "American" is somebody from the United States of America.
Well. I don't like the word "English" for people from The United Kingdom. So I shall just call them UKians.
Who cares what you like? It's what the people call themselves. I've never heard anybody use "American" to refer to anybody not from the United States of America. You're from Canada? You're Canadian. You're from Mexico? You're Mexican. How is this difficult?
Some people find "American" offensive? Seriously? I've never met anyone who thought so. USian is typically meant as offensive OTOH.
What in the world is a USian? I've never heard anybody call themselves that... Is that like "United Kingdomer?" Or "UAEian?"
When did I get to a country where guilt is decided by the media? This guy will get a trial. The DA will present proof. If 12 people are convinced, he will be punished. Then they will decide how much.
No, I do not personally have proof. I was just stating the the difference is intent. People are comparing this to the fucking Sun for crying out loud.
even illegal aliens pay sales tax
They could claim this upon re-entering their own country. But since they're *illegal* in the first place, they shouldn't even be here to pay those taxes...
Illegals have lately fallen between the proverbial cracks. They get many benefits of society, without much of the tax burden (many work under the table, get multiple fake social security numbers, etc). But they're *here*, and are 'sorta' citizens. I'm all for their deportation myself.
My assumption is that the laser may still be potent even from his back yard. My rocks, however, would not be. Thus I would need to be on the runway.
Say I have a potato cannon then. And I shoot potatos at an airplane as it passes overhead on approach. Or I just shoot a gun at them. Something.
My *point* is that it's not the method of attempting to take the plane down, it's the act of attempting to take the plane down that is the problem.
And I agree, 25years is a lot, if he wasn't intentionally trying to crash a plane (it was an accident or just fscking around).
Did you read (ha ha ha) the same story I did? Up to 25 years. They don't say what the minimum he could get. If he was purpously trying to crash the plane, I be he'd get 25. Else if he was just fscking around (or did it by accident), like you and I suspect, he'll probably get off with a fine.
You need to be *told* that it's illegal to attempt to blind pilots on landing???
So I guess war in general is illegal now? I'm sure there's an exception for it somwhere.
I'd be interested. Do you have a collection of links or gathered documents anywhere? This seems like something that would be nice to have...