Stallman would prefer to remove all IP rights and restrictions altogether.
Unlike some, I confess to be no expert on what Stallman thinks about everything every moment of every day, but hasn't he softened his views on certain types of IP? Whereas all forms were initially taboo, aren't some deemed more or less "okay" now? For example, recently the FSF seems to spend a great deal of effort taking on software patents in lieu of software copyrights. Does this mean that Stallman has contemplated a future for the software industry in which patents are gone but (less restrictive) copyrights remain?
Wow, so suddenly this is about what I think and "cannot grasp?" Aren't you proud of yourself. I have no idea how you could have inferred so much about what I think about the GPL and IP issues based on two offhand sentences, nor do I have any interest in putting much effort into figuring out why. The only thing I can guess is that you perceive yourself to be some sort of self-appointed expert on both, and jump at the chance to rant and rave about them regardless of what others are actually talking about.
For instance, for the life of me, I have no fucking idea what this means in the context of anything anyone has said:
What is really funny is that you still cannot grasp what the GPL is. Let me explain this to you in simple terms: as long as there is IP, the GPL is supposed to hold. The only time the GPL isn't legally binding is if there is no such thing as IP.
...but you seem committed to it as though it's a rebuttal to some sort of intimation on my part (as though I suggested somehow that Stallman was against all forms of intellectual property? What are you, stupid?). No, you sat there in your chair, wiped the mucous and Cheetos dust from your pudgy, deformed paws, and laboriously pecked out a refutation to a position neither of us even has. You sat down and just spit out some irrelevant garbage with the hope that if you acted like enough of a sanctimonious, condescending little prick, it would seem like it was relevant to something somebody had said at some point.
So now I'm afraid we must part ways. Me? I'll forget all about you pretty quickly (you are just a nobody, after all), and leave you to masturbate your intellect on your own time. Since you seem to think so highly of yourself--what with the way you try to elevate your opinions and to diminish others (even the made-up ones)--I think that's probably best for us both.
Today's episode, airing as I type this, just pointed out the graphic that Fox News ran multiple times after taping where it was claimed that Foley was a Democratic congressman. How's that for topical?
To date, they've still issued no apology or retraction. I take it this has been a rough week for Republicans: I was flipping channels earlier this evening and saw that O'Reilly was talking about Anna Nicole Smith rather than hmm...something else that might have happened in the news.
Considering that the alternative consists of ad hominem attacks and bizarre rhetoric even most conservatives reject, and that the average age of that show is 71, it's no wonder that you would like The Daily Show instead. I also like to be both informed and entertained, and The Daily Show does both perfectly.
First, to clarify it to anyone who may actually be misinformed enough to believe this nonesense, the whole idea behind the GPL is to undermine the concept of IP.
Exactly. Stallman, bless his heart, is a famous hippie who envisioned nothing short of the death of the software industry in its then-current form when he first wrote the GPL in 1991. That's why it's so ironic when he opines on other software IP issues, often with the goal of appealing to commercial software companies. To them, it's just too much like taking a bite of the poison apple.
As I read this chapter, the introduction to Strauss's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" began to play in my mind. I slowly looked toward the sky as I realized that, yes, if this is what it takes, then maybe I, too, could write a book.
Do it! If your books end up even half as interesting as your book reviews, then you'll really have something. Good luck!
Just wanted to add that I forgot to take into account who may or may not be counted when per capita wealth is calculated. Considering a country like the UAE is set up to support the Emirates (natives), with every ex-pat, Pakistani, or Puerto-Rican immigrant treated like the "help," it's likely that non-Emirates would not be accurately counted. That would leave you with literally a nation filled with millionaires, which of course skews the numbers.
That list is ostensibly missing most of the Arab nations that are far wealthier per capita than their European counterparts. For example, last I looked the UAE was the second-wealthiest nation in the world per capita. Cultural bias? Maybe, but this Wikipedia entry seems to get to the bottom of things. Apparently, many of the Middle Eastern countries are not considered "developed" according to some arbitrary criteria, so they're not counted in these cheesy rankings.
Oh that's nice. I come back to check./ and this is what I find? Some random guy who made his account like yesterday is calling me a moron for posting a link that was mentioned in the original article. I don't know what your problem is, buddy, but like most Slashdot posters I use this in conjunction with this and I'm adware-free. I even had to look up what Zango was just to figure out what the hell you thought was so important that you posted about it like a million times.
I don't know what kind of bizarre, self-important crusade you think you're on by cluttering up./ with your ridiculous tirades, but it really makes you seem like a real jackass. Just a little FYI.
driving some ostentatious ride for the tiny-penised, and you secretly wished horrible things upon him? Well now your retribution can be realized--look no further. The wreckedexotics.com site, referenced in the article, is just amazing.
I understood it as sarcasm, code for something like "isn't it almost always the case that companies refuse to be accountable for screwups?" That one word could be shorthand for all of that is what's so great about language.;)
So, if I have a Windows license (and I do), what would be the incentive to go with something like Crossover, when I can use VMWare or Xen for zero cost, and not worry about compatibility of any of my applications?
If you hate waiting to boot a whole other OS from inside your OS, then Crossover is the way to go. If you just need a couple of apps to run under Linux, and really don't need the memory overhead associated with running more than one OS at once, then Crossover is again the way to go.
And let's not forget what's mentioned in the post...gaming! Wine/cxoffice/cedega have gotten good enough to where you can run most popular Windows games under Linux with few issues. Last I heard, DirectX with a Windows guest OS under VMWare was still a very sketchy proposition. You certainly can't run most modern 3D games under VMWare.
Or alternatively, why not just have a good sense of humor in the first place? That way, you wouldn't have to constantly clue others in on what you think is so funny (and actually isn't).
All of these people didn't seem to get the joke either, you know?
That's an interesting theory. They're either guilty of being fame-hungry alarmists, or creepy, untalented kids with a bad sense of humor. Either way, they need a cardboard tube beating.
That's a lot to respond to. I'll answer this for starters:
But we also must embrace the reality that each sovereign nation is a separate political entity with a different legal climate, economic power, culture, history, language, etc.
All of these differences tend to cause imbalances in how entities in each country trade goods or services. These imbalances can be used to give one side or another an advantage, and players on both sides can profit from that. But in most cases, the profit is unequal.
What many people don't seem to understand is that's the whole point. The idea is to give nations the ability to leverage their strengths in the global marketplace. Of course those strengths are the result of different cultures, geography, language, religion or whatever else you can imagine. That's a really good thing. Hey, maybe a nation has huge natural reserves of oil or coal? Maybe it has a large, disciplined work force that can manufacture cheap goods? It doesn't really matter what a nation is best at--the idea behind GATT and the WTO is to allow every member nation the chance to capitalize on those strengths.
After that, you seem to have sandwiched an anti-immigration argument into a discussion about free trade. You are probably one of those people who misunderstands what free trade actually entails under international treaties, but that's okay, because it's an easy mistake to make. There is so much bad information and rhetoric out there by people who claim that "free trade is this" or "free trade is that." Their goal is to confuse you and make you think that the world is changing around you for all the wrong reasons, instead of just as a result of market principles. I view the writer of the original Slashdot article as just such an alarmist.
The truth is that free trade really just boils down to preventing governments from artifically propping up their own domestic producers (and by proxy, their domestic labor force) by granting subsidies to those producers. If you believe in free competition in the marketplace, in no monopolies or cartels, and that consumers should be able to pay low prices for quality goods, then it's a very easy concept to embrace. The alternative is that you believe that governments should be able to screw around with the global economy by giving billions to dying industries, tax breaks to big businesses, and so on--you know, the exact things that the GATT and the WTO try to prevent.
There's so much irony there when Mr. Slashdot Poster X says something sanctimonious like he's against big, corrupt businesses taking his tax money and then proceeds to adopt the anti-globalization position that supports exactly that. The ignorance is astounding.
Then you go on to pick on tariffs:
It's true that Tarrifs, like any government-driven regulation, can be abused. But the solution is not to limit them. The solution is to develop an accountability process that discourages abuse. Tarrifs can also do as much damage as subsidies, to an industry's competitiveness. Again, intelligent moderation of subsidy level is the solution. Not an ideologically-driven "ban all tariffs!" movement.
Unlimited tariffs would topple entire nations, mostly the undeveloped ones you probably are trying to protect. So no, sorry, that's just a ridiculous thing to claim. I can tell you're maybe not really up on this, or you might be aware that an accountability process already exists.
There's more, but I'm just feeling like a broken record player. There's a lot of information out there, in books and even just on Wikipedia. You could start by reading about what comparative advantage means, what it entails, and why it's controversial to some people. Then you could read about GATT. It's going to
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike some, I confess to be no expert on what Stallman thinks about everything every moment of every day, but hasn't he softened his views on certain types of IP? Whereas all forms were initially taboo, aren't some deemed more or less "okay" now? For example, recently the FSF seems to spend a great deal of effort taking on software patents in lieu of software copyrights. Does this mean that Stallman has contemplated a future for the software industry in which patents are gone but (less restrictive) copyrights remain?
For instance, for the life of me, I have no fucking idea what this means in the context of anything anyone has said:
So now I'm afraid we must part ways. Me? I'll forget all about you pretty quickly (you are just a nobody, after all), and leave you to masturbate your intellect on your own time. Since you seem to think so highly of yourself--what with the way you try to elevate your opinions and to diminish others (even the made-up ones)--I think that's probably best for us both.
Today's episode, airing as I type this, just pointed out the graphic that Fox News ran multiple times after taping where it was claimed that Foley was a Democratic congressman. How's that for topical?
To date, they've still issued no apology or retraction. I take it this has been a rough week for Republicans: I was flipping channels earlier this evening and saw that O'Reilly was talking about Anna Nicole Smith rather than hmm...something else that might have happened in the news.
Considering that the alternative consists of ad hominem attacks and bizarre rhetoric even most conservatives reject, and that the average age of that show is 71, it's no wonder that you would like The Daily Show instead. I also like to be both informed and entertained, and The Daily Show does both perfectly.
Exactly. Stallman, bless his heart, is a famous hippie who envisioned nothing short of the death of the software industry in its then-current form when he first wrote the GPL in 1991. That's why it's so ironic when he opines on other software IP issues, often with the goal of appealing to commercial software companies. To them, it's just too much like taking a bite of the poison apple.
Mel Gibson? Is that you?
As I read this chapter, the introduction to Strauss's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" began to play in my mind. I slowly looked toward the sky as I realized that, yes, if this is what it takes, then maybe I, too, could write a book.
Do it! If your books end up even half as interesting as your book reviews, then you'll really have something. Good luck!
From the makers of World of Home Improvement Loans-craft, Sim Taxpayer, and Virtua Grocery Clerk, it's:
Sam and Max Get a Price Tag!
and no I won't read the article for clarification. Let me have my delusions, please.
Just wanted to add that I forgot to take into account who may or may not be counted when per capita wealth is calculated. Considering a country like the UAE is set up to support the Emirates (natives), with every ex-pat, Pakistani, or Puerto-Rican immigrant treated like the "help," it's likely that non-Emirates would not be accurately counted. That would leave you with literally a nation filled with millionaires, which of course skews the numbers.
That list is ostensibly missing most of the Arab nations that are far wealthier per capita than their European counterparts. For example, last I looked the UAE was the second-wealthiest nation in the world per capita. Cultural bias? Maybe, but this Wikipedia entry seems to get to the bottom of things. Apparently, many of the Middle Eastern countries are not considered "developed" according to some arbitrary criteria, so they're not counted in these cheesy rankings.
Oh that's nice. I come back to check ./ and this is what I find? Some random guy who made his account like yesterday is calling me a moron for posting a link that was mentioned in the original article. I don't know what your problem is, buddy, but like most Slashdot posters I use this in conjunction with this and I'm adware-free. I even had to look up what Zango was just to figure out what the hell you thought was so important that you posted about it like a million times.
./ with your ridiculous tirades, but it really makes you seem like a real jackass. Just a little FYI.
I don't know what kind of bizarre, self-important crusade you think you're on by cluttering up
This is just genius. Can we say organized crime-backed money laundering schemes?
driving some ostentatious ride for the tiny-penised, and you secretly wished horrible things upon him? Well now your retribution can be realized--look no further. The wreckedexotics.com site, referenced in the article, is just amazing.
I understood it as sarcasm, code for something like "isn't it almost always the case that companies refuse to be accountable for screwups?" That one word could be shorthand for all of that is what's so great about language. ;)
I've heard some pretty hideous things about Rochester, Syracuse, etc. and apparently it's all true. Thanks for the insight.
If you hate waiting to boot a whole other OS from inside your OS, then Crossover is the way to go. If you just need a couple of apps to run under Linux, and really don't need the memory overhead associated with running more than one OS at once, then Crossover is again the way to go.
And let's not forget what's mentioned in the post...gaming! Wine/cxoffice/cedega have gotten good enough to where you can run most popular Windows games under Linux with few issues. Last I heard, DirectX with a Windows guest OS under VMWare was still a very sketchy proposition. You certainly can't run most modern 3D games under VMWare.
*downloads your bank account information*
*runs*
Or alternatively, why not just have a good sense of humor in the first place? That way, you wouldn't have to constantly clue others in on what you think is so funny (and actually isn't).
All of these people didn't seem to get the joke either, you know?
That's an interesting theory. They're either guilty of being fame-hungry alarmists, or creepy, untalented kids with a bad sense of humor. Either way, they need a cardboard tube beating.
Are nerds really that unsocialized that something like this qualifies as humor?
Now I don't feel so bad for making fun of their last names!
We missed the chance to ask him if he's ever had just 25 minutes to plan and write something!
What many people don't seem to understand is that's the whole point. The idea is to give nations the ability to leverage their strengths in the global marketplace. Of course those strengths are the result of different cultures, geography, language, religion or whatever else you can imagine. That's a really good thing. Hey, maybe a nation has huge natural reserves of oil or coal? Maybe it has a large, disciplined work force that can manufacture cheap goods? It doesn't really matter what a nation is best at--the idea behind GATT and the WTO is to allow every member nation the chance to capitalize on those strengths.
After that, you seem to have sandwiched an anti-immigration argument into a discussion about free trade. You are probably one of those people who misunderstands what free trade actually entails under international treaties, but that's okay, because it's an easy mistake to make. There is so much bad information and rhetoric out there by people who claim that "free trade is this" or "free trade is that." Their goal is to confuse you and make you think that the world is changing around you for all the wrong reasons, instead of just as a result of market principles. I view the writer of the original Slashdot article as just such an alarmist.
The truth is that free trade really just boils down to preventing governments from artifically propping up their own domestic producers (and by proxy, their domestic labor force) by granting subsidies to those producers. If you believe in free competition in the marketplace, in no monopolies or cartels, and that consumers should be able to pay low prices for quality goods, then it's a very easy concept to embrace. The alternative is that you believe that governments should be able to screw around with the global economy by giving billions to dying industries, tax breaks to big businesses, and so on--you know, the exact things that the GATT and the WTO try to prevent.
There's so much irony there when Mr. Slashdot Poster X says something sanctimonious like he's against big, corrupt businesses taking his tax money and then proceeds to adopt the anti-globalization position that supports exactly that. The ignorance is astounding.
Then you go on to pick on tariffs:
Unlimited tariffs would topple entire nations, mostly the undeveloped ones you probably are trying to protect. So no, sorry, that's just a ridiculous thing to claim. I can tell you're maybe not really up on this, or you might be aware that an accountability process already exists.
There's more, but I'm just feeling like a broken record player. There's a lot of information out there, in books and even just on Wikipedia. You could start by reading about what comparative advantage means, what it entails, and why it's controversial to some people. Then you could read about GATT. It's going to