Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I LOVE READING PROPAGANDA (Score 1) 944

by diamondmagic (#47942021) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

The metric you're looking for, and the only meaningful one for your point, is called Real GDP Per Capita. And it's up. Subcatagories of durable goods are also up. Up in real terms, per capita.

If you want to say we would be manufacturing more if not due to bad economic policy, fine. I agree.

But don't spread this nonsense that is technically the same thing as saying we're in a recession.

Comment: Re:I LOVE READING PROPAGANDA (Score 2) 944

by diamondmagic (#47932663) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

GDP measures the growth of the economy as a whole, over time, within a particular geographical area.

If you say that share of GDP of a certain industry to nationwide GDP has changed from 28% to 12%, but overall GDP grew 600% (or whatever), then mathematically, said industry grew -- it wasn't #1 in growth, but it still grew.

Nor does manufacturing need to be #1. The service sector can grow without sucking up other industry's resources, so naturally the GDP-share of other industry is going to shrink.

These are well-defined terms in economics. You're just being obtuse.

Comment: Re:Spoilers (Score 1) 131

by diamondmagic (#47912921) Attached to: The FCC Net Neutrality Comment Deadline Has Arrived: What Now?

The issue is ISPs throttling based upon provider source.

Now there's an actual Net Neutrality violation. But...

If you pay for a 100Mbps connection I imagine you expect it should be pretty close to 100Mbps to any endpoint on the internet barring their end having a slower connection, not you can only get 2.5Mbps to Netflix because ISP don't like them but you can have your full 100Mbps to app store owned by ISP.

You don't need legislation for that, isn't that called fraud?

Comment: Re:Spoilers (Score 1) 131

by diamondmagic (#47911943) Attached to: The FCC Net Neutrality Comment Deadline Has Arrived: What Now?

Net Neutrality is a technically a routing policy that individual nodes in the network can comply with. My home router is most certainly not neutral, for instance, and that's a good thing, I like how I have traffic prioritized on my network.

Of course, that definition doesn't really make sense in this context. Perhaps you refer to enforcing a law that brings legal action against router operators that don't implement the routing policy. But that doesn't really make any sense either; the FCC never had any policy on the books to begin with. You can't end something by continuing to not have a law three decades after the fact.

(Fwiw, I'm totally down for not enacting more laws. The FCC is not your friend, and I doubt they'd be an effective packet police.)

Comment: Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? (Score 1) 149

Corporations have been around long before the 19th century and as legal entities managed and owned by us individuals, they most certainly do enjoy the same rights to own property and conduct trade, and are held accountable to not violate the law.

That last part is kind of important. Corporations are considered persons because they're expected to follow the law, too!

Really, what do you think corporations are made of, woodland critters and robots?

Comment: Re:Information wants to be free (Score 1) 121

by diamondmagic (#47886367) Attached to: Publishers Gave Away 123 Million Books During World War Two

"Information wants to be free" is an obvious anthropomorphization; of course it can't literally "want" to be free, what's being referred to is the negative consequences that happen when we try to restrict resharing of information: you could almost imagine the information as a person being unhappy and protesting, whenever is censored.

Comment: Re:Public performance (Score 1) 326

by diamondmagic (#47854433) Attached to: Stallman Does Slides -- and Brevity -- For TEDx

A computer program is a literary work; not a song, audiovisual work, or similar. You don't "perform" a computer program, and executing it does not create a copy. If the concept as applied to literary works wasn't clear enough, the statute explicitly singles out computer programs as not infringing during the process of executing them.

Comment: Re:Free SaaSS can exist (Score 1) 326

by diamondmagic (#47853127) Attached to: Stallman Does Slides -- and Brevity -- For TEDx

There are, as is pointed out in the link you provided, terms and conditions attached to the use of the software; which do not make it any less free. in fact they keep it free.

They are terms for redistribution as required to legally make a copy under copyright law. It is not an EULA or other form of contract that must be agreed to prior to receiving a copy.

The GPL does this effectively: "You must include the source code (and other conditions) or you can't distribute a copy at all." This is the only restriction it can legally make, however. It can't restrict how you use the software in private when you don't make copies (including how you or others access it over the network).

Comment: Re:Free SaaSS can exist (Score 1) 326

by diamondmagic (#47848883) Attached to: Stallman Does Slides -- and Brevity -- For TEDx

Again, the AGPL is a license that you must accept to use the software. You focus on the output which is not the issue; the issue is how you may use the software under the license and your obligation as a result of using the software.

Please name the legal requirement that I accept the AGPL in order to use the software. In the US, there is:

* Copyright law
* Patent law

Patents aren't the issue here, and copyright law is not being invoked by merely making the software available on the network (and in fact, this use is explicitly defined as non-infringing).

Comment: Re:Free SaaSS can exist (Score 1) 326

by diamondmagic (#47848779) Attached to: Stallman Does Slides -- and Brevity -- For TEDx

which in this case requires making source available; just as the venue has to pay a fee when someone plays a copyrighted song.

This is incorrect. Songs are described differently than literary works in the copyright statute, software programs being literary works.

A performance of a song, as I listed, requires a license (and copyright law specifically singles out songs). However, the output of a software program is not copyrightable, and therefore no license is necessary.

Copyright law makes no distinction between using over the network and on your local monitor, and such usage is explicitly defined in US statute as non-infringing. How would you like it, or the FSF for that matter, if copyright law could be used to dictate that you sitting at your computer could be a copyright infringer by merely opening up the wrong application sitting at your desk? I suspect not very much.

Comment: Re:Free SaaSS can exist (Score 1) 326

by diamondmagic (#47848561) Attached to: Stallman Does Slides -- and Brevity -- For TEDx

If I own the copyright I can license the works under the condition if you modify it and run it on network you need to make the source available, which the AGPL does

Once I have a copy, you can't control what I do with that copy until I want to make another copy. This is defined by copyright law, and includes (among other things):

* Performing a stage play or audiovisual work
* A public performance of a song
* Remixing or arranging a song (a compulsory license can be acquired if the song is commercially released)
* Sending a copy of a novel, software program, or other literary work to another person

What's not on this list: Merely using a software program over the network, as no copy is being made. I don't need to accept the AGPL to legally download an AGPL'd program, put it on my server, and let the general public use it.

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.

Working...