muuh-gnu

18 ms·

151.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> This isn't the fault of the kernel team though. It is the result of having no unified platform and library release coordination, no long term plans, nothing, just chaos. Everybody just releases when he is in the mood for it. And since
152.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> when does reasonable criticism become hate mongering? From the point somebody starts to criticize Israel. Criticizing Israel, at least in the West, has become the modern day equivalent of religious blasphemy. All the usual tactics for
153.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
I am nut "judging" him. He didnt give enough information to answer his question. My answer was that whether he should feel guilty or not depends on whether he supports intellectual property or not. I, for one, do not support the concept of
154.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> I wonder am I guilty to pirate Matlab? If you otherwise support the concept of intellectual property, you are. If you believe that Matlab is MathWorks "property", MathWorks is not obliged to sell you their property, and if you take wh
155.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> You only get copyright in How about letting people everywhere simply vote on copyright? On copyright duration. On copyright extent. On filesharing. Etc. It is the people whom copyright is primarily enforced against. It is their natura
156.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> So, please do not lose heart, not just yet. If I weren't excited about it, I wouldnt even be commenting on it. ;)
157.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> he begin/end is due to Matlab Octave has solved this by allowing both matlab-style "end", as well as block-specific endings, like "endif", "endfunction", "endfor", etc. Having several end end end endings without any hint of what they
158.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
German politicians _are_ as useless, spineless, back stabbing, lying assholes as everybody else's politicians. > They signed without blinking an eye. So would German big-party politicians. But... next year we have elections, and the Pir
159.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> Richard Stallman believes in the freedom of software, not the freedom of individuals. Stallman believes in freedom of indivisuals, _including_ the freedom of individuals down the stream. The BSD increases only your (egoistic) "freedom
160.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> The problem is with how it got negotiated and signed How is it different how ACTA got negotiated and signed and how copyright policy in general is being negotiated and enacted? How is ACTA less democratic than stuff like life+70 years
161.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> I believe Rapidshare went to court about this. In Germany/Switzerland.
162.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> The legal question will be answered by the courts. This is not a legal question of interpreting an existing law. The law itself should be rewritten in a way that makes the biggest possible number of people OK with it. > One of the
163.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> Why should we? Because it yields a situation which the largest number of people is OK with. It maximizes the satisfaction of the people with the legal system. > We don't hold referendums on every other issue. We not doing somethin
164.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> Voting on morality is not a good idea. Who is then gonna decide what behavior is OK and whats not OK? Who is gonna decide if filesharing is OK or not OK?
165.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
I was comparing the US and the EU because of a similar size. When you have 160 parties representing the views of 500 Million Europeans, it is very unlikely that having merely 2 parties representing the views of 300 million Americans is a na
166.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> have a notion that all filmmakers are swimming in money anyways. The question whether copying is right or wrong has nothing to do with the amount of money filmmakers are swimming in. Person A sending a file to person B against the wis
167.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> many people do indeed watch it illegally If your wife cant make a living by making films, because people rather copy than pay for copies, she should change her job, because people obviously dont want to pay her for what shes doing. Th
168.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
Instead of spending time and effort to persuade people to throw their votes away, spend time and effort changing the voting system so that voting for third parties isnt as futile as FPTP. In the European parliament, the members belong to ap
169.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> The amount of space is tied to the relevance of the party How is this justified? Bigger parties are already popular enough, why should they get more media exposure than unknown parties? This is basically like giving the winner of one
170.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> considered unconstitutional because you're limiting freedom of speech. Then amend the constitution to allow this particular limit on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not a sanctum that has to be protected at all cost, even if w
171.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
Who cares. IP protection trumps basic common sense and basic human rights. And even though we all have to abide by inane protectionism schemes, we should not be allowed to directly vote on them, because direct democracy would make uninforme
172.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> Megaupload is Swizz based No, they were Hong Kong based. Rapidshare (Switzerland/Germany) has already been sued there, and won, so their (current) business model, for the time being, is not accessible for american "shock and awe" just
173.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> Yes they do because Who gave it to them? I dont think that we ever, as a society, ever fundamentally _agreed_ to the existence of such exclusivity rights. Yes they are in the constitution, yes they are in the lawbooks, but the people
174.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> superstition popular while a law forbidding it would be very unpopular Having a legal way for the population to defend themselves against bad (purchased) laws does not in any way imply that you would immediately turn into a theocracy.
175.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
There should be a way for the people to veto a law in a referendum, like in Switzerland. That way politicians would be more cautious passing laws which they know that the public probably won't like and probably will veto. The current US sy
176.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> encourage these young people to run for office Which is raising another, more underlying problem: Why do we as a society have no means to change stuff by voting on it, like in a, as it is called, "democracy"? Why is the only practicab
177.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> If you want to incentivize creators, you shouldn't copy their stuff. They do not have the legal possibility to not want to incentivize creators. In practice, they also do not have a possibility to even vote on this, and they know that
178.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> The thing is copyright no longer makes sense. From a democratic point of view, it doesnt even _matter_ whether it makes sense or not. The only thing that matters is whether we, as a society, collectively _want_ private, non-commercial
179.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> Too much useful work is already done in elisp. I'm not contesting that, just saying that it is a pity (from the perspective of the wealth of the overall Lisp ecosystem) that all this valuable work has been done in Elisp and not in Com
180.
by muuh-gnu 15y ago
> If Emacs is nearly an operating system then it's kind of nearly a software Lisp machine. Which is why it is such a pity that they are still putting so much valuable work into fighting Elisp instead of having a full fledged CL with a n

More ›