Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Pesticides in organic production (Score 1) 305

From epa.gov:

"Organically grown" food is food grown and processed using no synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. Pesticides derived from natural sources (such as biological pesticides) may be used in producing organically grown food.

Contrary to your ladybug example, this is what the epa.gov has to say about one biological pesticide option:

Biochemical pesticides are naturally occurring substances that control pests by non-toxic mechanisms. Conventional pesticides, by contrast, are generally synthetic materials that directly kill or inactivate the pest. Biochemical pesticides include substances, such as insect sex pheromones, that interfere with mating, as well as various scented plant extracts that attract insect pests to traps. Because it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a substance meets the criteria for classification as a biochemical pesticide, EPA has established a special committee to make such decisions.

I prefer organic produce personally, but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to misrepresent the facts and call people idiots over the matter.

Comment: Re:200000 or 300000 in India is very low (Score 1) 418

by mixmatch (#30781138) Attached to: $4,400/Yr. Coders May Work On Dept. of Labor Project
Some of your comments are a bit ill-conceived. There are plenty of places where taking metro and bus are faster than driving. Sharing an apartment/house with 2-4 people can mitigate the cost of housing. You can also buy healthy food for cheap and growing food in a garden is free. Obviously you would forgo some of the creature comforts that a lot of Americans take for granted, but it would not necessarily be as dire as you describe. Just because people can't stay out of debt because they refuse to cancel their cable doesn't mean that everyone is fiscally retarded.

Comment: Re:What if it IS a GPL violation part II? (Score 1) 186

by mixmatch (#30065874) Attached to: MS Pulls Windows 7 Tool After GPL Violation Claim
Obviously the FSF cannot sue over someone else's copyright without their consent. The quote I provided clearly stated:

enforcing the license on FSF-copyrighted software

They do, however accept reports of suspected GPL violations and assist GPL developers in upholding their rights.

Comment: Re:What if it IS a GPL violation part II? (Score 2, Informative) 186

by mixmatch (#30057716) Attached to: MS Pulls Windows 7 Tool After GPL Violation Claim
That would be the Free Software Foundation ( http://www.fsf.org/licensing ).

The Compliance Lab has been an informal activity of the FSF since 1992 and was formalized in December 2001. We handle all licensing-related issues for FSF. We serve the free software community by providing the public with a "knowledge infrastructure" surrounding the GNU GPL and free software licensing, and enforcing the license on FSF-copyrighted software.

Comment: Re:Slashdot--so we're against copyright now? (Score 1) 865

by mixmatch (#29948226) Attached to: Apple Says Booting OS X Makes an Unauthorized Copy
I never said that GPL was about complete freedom. I did not say GPL was about freedom to distribute however you want. While you may not agree with the restrictions of the GPL, I think you would have a hard time arguing that it is not fair. After all, the fact that you accepting the license means that you are getting someone else's work for free. I think its only fair to return the favor. The bottom line is that the GPL is the best known way of ensuring a healthy source-sharing community. The Microsoft way does not allow derivative works and forks and the BSD way relies solely on the good will of developers to contribute back code. Can all systems of code sharing work? Absolutely.

Comment: Re:Slashdot--so we're against copyright now? (Score 1) 865

by mixmatch (#29948198) Attached to: Apple Says Booting OS X Makes an Unauthorized Copy
You must not have read what you quoted, because I only talk about the freedom to: a) obtain the code b) modify the code The only stipulation I mention is that this is guaranteed to everyone. Closing the source of the program obviously removes my freedom to modify the code you produced doesn't it? You remind me of people that say things like, "America is a free country. I can do whatever I want." Yes, America is a free country, and no, you cannot do whatever you want. The GPL guarantees everyone certain freedoms, but no, you can't do whatever you want with it.

Comment: Re:Slashdot--so we're against copyright now? (Score 4, Informative) 865

by mixmatch (#29944088) Attached to: Apple Says Booting OS X Makes an Unauthorized Copy
Maybe your confusion is due to the fact that you think the GPL zealot crowd actually cares about copyright. What we care about is freedom. In the GPL's case, it is guaranteeing everyone the freedom to take a program and modify it however they desire. In this case, the concern is about the freedom to use software one has purchased however one desires. As far as I know, this has not been settled by court as copyright infringement. Incidentally, you don't have to support everything about copyright or detest it completely. You can see good and bad implications and places where there is room for improvement. Its perfectly reasonable for me to want to see GPL content covered by copyright and not desire that 40-year old books also be covered.

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.

Working...