The full-year data place Germany as the world's number two exporter behind China which posted exports worth a total €1.43 billion and a trade surplus of €117 billion in 2011.
Correlation does not show causation.
Having skimmed over the document, it tries to connect an assumption with linguistic terms and formulas in order prove this assumption. It's a work of one who excels at cocktail parties or executive meetings without real scientific value.
The quotation is also a "fallacy", if used without context. Imagine there's a party saying there should be a law that will kill you and your family, will you "defend it to the death"?
Yes, and oppose it equally -- through speech, not violence. -GiH
Thank you. This is why I am still on slashdot, people reading comments and actually commenting in a thoughtful way.
Historical experience tells us that any attempt to shut down discussion will be abused. If we allow the government to set limits, they will set the limits in a way that benefits the government, and not the people. Therefore, there must be no limits.
I sympathise with your statement, but a government or a state has the duty to ensure the safety and freedom of all citizens and non-citizens who live in their area of control. Incitement to hatred or crime is such a danger and thus the government has to act and limit those actions of speech. There must be a debate over this limits.
So all those who called for the death of Osama Bin Laden should have gone to jail for that?
He should have stand trial, if possible. That was not the case. If somebody with executive power in the government issued a shoot-to-kill order, this person as well should have to face a trial. There was no declaration of war to Pakistan. If my neighbour tells me Bin Laden should be killed right away, I try to explain why this is not the best idea, but my neighbour should not go to jail because she has no power to issue those orders. If my neighbour repeatedly says "I am gonna kill this parasite at the other of the street" there should be consequences.
If we ever have another world war, it will be because of too much censorship, not too little.
Agreed. There's one raging, because a lot of the footsoldiers in Quaida/Taliban/etc are cut off from the wealth of information the world has to offer and a notion that god might be an idea invented by humans. The only answer I can think of is access to education and the basic concepts of human rights, as well as economic well being. In western countries the free flow of information kinda works.
You misunderstand. Defending speech != defending idea. Besides, how will you know if an idea will affect anything or not unless you allow it to be expressed in free speech?
We know how ideas were put to work in Nazi Germany. The Weimar Republic's constitution guaranteed individual rights such as the freedom of speech and assembly to each citizen. After that catastrophe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been declared and countries like France or Germany set limits to free speech.
A party should have a right to discuss such a law; it's that discussion that's being defended, not the law itself.
I am aware of that, I just think that there are limits to what is tolerable to discuss in order to have a worthwhile discussion or discourse, based on historical experience and the western "unalienable rights". I won't defend somebody who says "kill $foo" and there will be a better world. So to avoid to "build world" again like after WWII, we shut down the threat to freedom. There's a reason for jails in FreeBSD and in society.
Is that you Voltaire?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. " Though these words are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression.
The quotation is also a "fallacy", if used without context. Imagine there's a party saying there should be a law that will kill you and your family, will you "defend it to the death"?
The point is that if others contributed to your GPL'ed code, you have to get their permission to use the code in a closed-source environment. With a BSD license you don't have to worry about this. With the GPL it's hard to change the license, if there are a lot of contributors. Just take a look at the discussion about the Linux Kernel und GPL 3.0. Getting the consent of all copyright-holders in order to upgrade to 3.0 would be a nightmare.That makes no sense at all. Of course you can license your code to others under the GPL and still use it in your own proprietary products. You're not limited by the terms under which you license your code to others. That's like accusing Microsoft of hypocrisy for mass-duplicating their own software while also pressing piracy charges.
"Given the choice between accomplishing something and just lying around, I'd rather lie around. No contest." -- Eric Clapton
