He finally understands how the community can give as good as it gets! :roll:

That lawsuit a year ago was because McHardy was removed under the terms of the Code of Conflict (apparently he was trying to license the code he submitted and that license doesn't conform with GPLv2). Now imagine the fallout from Code of Conduct which less than 1% of the contributors agreed to, but is now binding. If it isn't just window dressing, Linux Foundation could be paying millions in copyright fines and their source code turned to swiss cheese in short order for the same reason McHardy did (was banned from contributing).

If Torvalds pulled that stunt against Linux Foundation, there wouldn't be a Linux left because so much of the code is his.

That's... quite a different issue (licensing) than adopting this Code of Conduct that gets you in trouble if you call somebody a dipshit or refuse to accept their code because you don't like them because they're a this or a that.

ValantarCan you show me an example in which the only possibility is zero fairness?

Taxing people who make more money at a higher rate than those who make less money because they chose not to go to college.

hatrefuse to accept their code because you don't like them because they're a this or a that

I don't believe this has ever happened. Most programmers value good code over politics.

moproblems99Taxing people who make more money at a higher rate than those who make less money because they chose not to go to college.

If only it were that simple... at least, in the US. Many people "choose" not to go to college because we don't want to be in debt forever, spending x amount of years trying to earn a degree that may or may not help you find a job in that specific field.

moproblems99Taxing people who make more money at a higher rate than those who make less money because they chose not to go to college.

That's a ridiculous misrepresentation of tax policy.

hatIf only it were that simple... at least, in the US. Many people "choose" not to go to college because we don't want to be in debt forever, spending x amount of years trying to earn a degree that may or may not help you find a job in that specific field.

It is still a choice.

EDIT:

You also can work and pay for it. No loans required. Or get scholarships...

Edit 2:

xenocideThat's a ridiculous misrepresentation of tax policy.

How so?

moproblems99It is still a choice.

EDIT:

You also can work and pay for it. No loans required. Or get scholarships...

Except that's not practical. There are hundreds or even thousands of people applying for scholarships, and some of them are essentially luck of the draw. You also just cannot work and pay for school as you go. It's far to expensive these days unless you have grants/scholarships. Even with them it's nearly impossible. You know who gets a massive leg-up though? People born to rich families. Regardless of actual work ethic or qualifications odds are people born to rich families will attend college and will not be crippled by debt for doing so.

moproblems99How so?

It's ignoring the fact that a lot of people who are insanely wealthy get to that because of services provided by the Government--disproportionately so compared to lower income earners. If you own a business you benefit from things like trade deals, a well maintained infrastructure, and even government subsidies way more than someone who works an entry level job such as a line cook. You also don't need to go to college to be insanely successful--as apparent by the fact that some of the richest human beings to ever live were not college graduates--and having a college degree doesn't guarantee you a higher income, just makes it more likely you will get a job which earns more money.

FordGT90ConceptHe finally understands how the community can give as good as it gets! :roll:

Are you talking to me? Have a genuinely hard time interpreting what this line even means...

What I got out of all of this is that linux needs to decide fast to start on a new license. The code of conduct is not the problem, it's a symptom.

xenocidesomeone who works an entry level job such as a line cook

Let's say our imaginary business owner employees said line cook. How much time and effort do you think that restaurant owner has invested into the restaurant over his/her life. Or how much work in week do you think that restaurant owner has to invest? Do you think he/she clocks out at 40 like the line cook.

Let's think about programmers. Programmer A took some classes in high school. Programmer B graduated from college. Who is getting paid more.

xenocideIt's far to expensive these days unless you have grants/scholarships.

I did it. While making $30k a year. It took me six years to finish but it is not impossible. If there is a will there is a way.

xenocideYou also don't need to go to college to be insanely successful--as apparent by the fact that some of the richest human beings to ever live were not college graduates--and having a college degree doesn't guarantee you a higher income, just makes it more likely you will get a job which earns more money.

Exactly, but this is not who we are talking about. In most cases, in the US, if you put the effort in then you will be rewarded. If you choose not to put the effort in then I wouldn't expect to be carried through life. If you don't put the effort in then I don't think it is fair to tax me at a higher rate to cover your ass.

Now, whether or not taxing everyone at different rates or the same rates is the best choice I am not debating. All that I am saying, is that taxing people at different rates based on income is not fair.

mtcn77You passed judgement on a book you didn't read. I did not on a former member of the same school of thought I have read. I merely pointed it out as an example to rule out his tutor.

Say what now? I think your memory is off here. I didn't pass judgement on a book I didn't read (in fact, the book wasn't really part of the discussion at that point). In the post in question, I argued against your arguments (the first instance where you claimed that social behaviour could be explained through thermodynamics), saying that even if I wasn't familiar with the science you were butchering to make your point your arguments could easily be countered and shown to be false. What I admitted ignorance to was high-level math and physics. Again, your beloved book wasn't a part of the discussion, and I didn't address it. Don't really think I have since either.

And if your argument is "If you read Atlas Shrugged, you'd understand why thermodynamics are relevant to social behaviour" then yes, I'm very happy to dismiss that argument outright, as the entire field of social science (and psychology, really) can easily stand as evidence that this is far too complex to boil down to a single variable like this.

mtcn77You are the epitome of dismissive subjective evaluations.

Right back at you, I suppose? At least I argue for mine in a clear and reasonable manner.

mtcn77Also, I never said I was in line with scientific conduct.

Maybe not, but given that you claim to be a Randian "objectivist", one would assume a certain adherence to the principles of that philosophy, no?

mtcn77The whole essay of scientific evidencing is construed backwards. You amplify deviation when enlarging the groupset - what scientific arbitration does does not involve singular evaluations, it only works for reducing researcher's own bias being projected onto generalizations but even then subjectivity can confound the evaluation as a loaded primary question.
Subjective evaluations should be outside the field of evidence based validation, such as you passing verdict on something without reading it in the first place. The opposing view is an exception that is observable but not replicable(fault not at evaluation since not yet disproven by examination), like my argument since you fail at doing the same examination yourself...

I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to try to decipher that word salad. Did I talk about a groupset, or enlarging it? As for the difference between subjective evaluation and evidence-based evaluation, it sounds like you're grossly oversimplifying things. There's no such thing as understanding data without interpretation, so subjectivity always applies, even when one attempts to account for it. Humans are incapable of interacting with the world save through our senses, and our senses are interpreted through our brains - which are complex, shaped by experience, and quite malleable. There's no such thing as a non-subjective evaluation. But, again, you're trying to change the subject instead of arguing your case. We're not here to discuss scientific reasoning, and I'm still missing your arguments on the actual topic here.

moproblems99Taxing people who make more money at a higher rate than those who make less money because they chose not to go to college.

Zero fairness? Really? So people with more opportunities in life have zero responsibility to contribute more back to the society that gave them those opportunities? I suppose you refuse to use public roads or other infrastructure, then, as it's not fair for you to use something that you haven't built yourself? Sorry, but people with more means contributing more back to society is not at all unfair. We can disagree on the details, but if you think any and all taxation is unfair, then you don't agree that society should exist in the first place.
Not to mention that "choosing" not to go to college in the US is barely a choice for most people. You seem to have made it work, but that's not possible for everyone.

moproblems99Let's say our imaginary business owner employees said line cook. How much time and effort do you think that restaurant owner has invested into the restaurant over his/her life. Or how much work in week do you think that restaurant owner has to invest? Do you think he/she clocks out at 40 like the line cook.

Let's think about programmers. Programmer A took some classes in high school. Programmer B graduated from college. Who is getting paid more.

Programmer B is highly likely to make (far) more money, and will have (far) more left after taxes, even if the tax rate is a few percentage points higher. An argument could be made for this still being unfair towards the one that didn't have the means/opportunity to go to college, if you want to get that nit-picky. And if they're paid the same, they're taxed the same, which might seem unfair for the one with college debt, but that's not the fault of the government (but rather the business that fails to recognize the value of a degree).

As for the business owner vs. line cook - the business owner can deduct investment losses and other business-related expenses from income tax, and is as such likely to pay the same or less tax as their employees (dependent on the tax code where this happens). And still, the business owner benefits far more significantly than the line cook from government-owned and -run initiatives - the roads letting people and goods get to the restaurant, the phone lines letting people make reservations, the internet letting people check out the menu, the water, gas and electric lines letting the restaurant operate. Even if those are owned and maintained by private companies, the body ensuring that they are required to work properly and that everyone gets equal access is the government. Every business is built on public resources. Paying for these is only fair.

moproblems99Exactly, but this is not who we are talking about. In most cases, in the US, if you put the effort in then you will be rewarded. If you choose not to put the effort in then I wouldn't expect to be carried through life. If you don't put the effort in then I don't think it is fair to tax me at a higher rate to cover your ass.

This simply isn't true. Socioeconomic mobility in the US is decreasing and is lower than in the 1970s, and is also lower than in many European countries. Where you're born and to who is a far greater factor in determining the outcome of your life than the effort you're putting in. Isn't it fair for society to try to equalise for this, if equal opportunity is the goal?

Also, it's kind of low to say that people working 2-3 jobs at minimum wage to keep their families fed aren't "putting in the effort."

But can we please get off this tax policy tangent? The first argument was flawed to begin with, as it's entirely possible to design tax policy that contains some fairness. Period. Your entire argument is arguing for the possibility of fair tax policy, even if you think the current policy is (somewhat?) unfair, which just goes to show that you misunderstood my question in the first place. You're actively saying that fair tax policy is a possibility. Now, let's get back to the topic, please.

R-T-BIt doesn't unfairly support any particular group, it strives for fair distribution if that.

NO, it has been created to increase share of LGBTQ+ ("and wiminz") share in that, official mission statement.
Ignoring the fact how idiotic it would be to create an organisation to just maintain status quo that nobody is even challenging.

Effectively, it has been created to punish for wrongthink, and that is effectively all they can do with that blurred CoC.

R-T-Bdon't let that stop you from downvoting me along party lines

Which bloody party, I live in Europe.

R-T-BYou should know better than to believe this in any longterm interpersonal environment, even digital ones.

Bullshit. I HAVE BEEN in "longterm interpersonal environment" and can talk about first hand experience.

All you can guess about other persons committing code to the project, is how good their English is. You can't guess neither age, nor gender, nor what kind of stuff that person finds attractive, WHY WOULD A SANE PERSON EVEN CARE ABOUT THAT? Jesus Christ.

moproblems99Taxing people who make more money at a higher rate than those who make less money because they chose not to go to college.

The americanisms here are annoying.
You are making up "because they chose not to go to college".

hatThat's... quite a different issue (licensing) than adopting this Code of Conduct that gets you in trouble if you call somebody a dipshit or refuse to accept their code because you don't like them because they're a this or a that.

No, it's not. If Linux Foundation banned this person, the person can copyright their code and demand Linux Foundation complies. If Linux Foundation doesn't comply, they can sue forcing removal of the code. Enforcing Code of Conflict cost millions of Euros for the Linux Foundation. Enforcing Code of Conduct will likely cost even more because it is so much more broad.

R-T-BAre you talking to me? Have a genuinely hard time interpreting what this line even means...

Banning McHardy cost the Linux Foundation millions of Euros. Every single ban they implemented because of this Code of Conduct could end up costing them a fortune.

R-T-BWhat I got out of all of this is that linux needs to decide fast to start on a new license. The code of conduct is not the problem, it's a symptom.

They can't because, as you pointed out, proprietary drivers couldn't be included under GPLv3 and they can't grandfather the old code into anything else without consent of the authors. They are stuck on GPLv2.

The Code of Conduct is the problem if they use it to ban people and those people exercise their rights to pull the carpet out from under Linux Foundation.

ValantarNow, let's get back to the topic, please.

Thanks for proving all my points.

medi01official mission statement.

Not enforcable. Only the agreement text is. That said since LGBT AND minorities are underrepresented they will probably try and increase their participation. (Idon't agree with that idea of artificial intervention, mind)

medi01Which bloody party, I live in Europe.

In that case it'd be social conservative vs liberal.

medi01Bullshit. I HAVE BEEN in "longterm interpersonal environment" and can talk about first hand experience.

So can I. As a matter of fact, all my work experience save maybe 1 year after high school has been online. Guess what? Sex comes up. It's stupid but it does. Personally I think we should focus on eliminating that.

R-T-BNot enforcable. Only the agreement text is.



In that case it'd be social conservative vs liberal.

You're just going to confuse things. In Europe, they still use the proper definition for liberals. Which is the "Right". Only in USA did the nation somehow collectively drink the Kool-Aid that Liberals are Statists. When the whole point of Liberalism was putting the individual first.

Although that might be changing. Seems even the Left likes calling themselves "Progressive" now. That's much more apt and in line with Marx's thinking.

StrayKATYou're just going to confuse things. In Europe, they still use the proper definition for liberals. Which is the "Right". Only in USA did the nation somehow collectively drink the Kool-Aid that Liberals are Statists. When the whole point of Liberalism was putting the individual first.

Although that might be changing. Seems even the Left likes calling themselves "Progressive" now. That's much more apt and in line with Marx's thinking.

Thanks but I'm familiar with european politics in this instance.

R-T-BThanks but I'm familiar with european politics in this instance.

Well, if you call them Liberal over there, many are going to assume the Right. That's all I'm saying. You said "social conservative vs liberal", as if these are different there. They aren't necessarily.

FordGT90ConceptThey can't because, as you pointed out, proprietary drivers couldn't be included under GPLv3 and they can't grandfather the old code into anything else without consent of the authors. They are stuck on GPLv2.

You realize this'll be a problem for any number of reasons leading to instability until they relicense? It's not healthy, and there are way more licenses than just the GPL to choose from. Linux needs to make a hard choice now or this problem will ALWAYS be a problem.

So yes, again, symptom. I'm aware relicensing will be very hard. I still think it should happen.

I'm still of the mind that GPL is the bigger hindrance than this COC will ever be. Both are literally designed to be hindrances though.

StrayKATWell, if you call them Liberal over there, many are going to assume the Right. That's all I'm saying. You said "social conservative vs liberal", as if these are different there. They aren't necessarily.

In euro terminology I'm quite confident he'll understand what I mean.

Social Conservative = conserving social norms.
Social Liberal = Wants change

R-T-BIn euro terminology I'm quite confident he'll understand what I mean.

Social Conservative = conserving social norms.
Social Liberal = Wants change

Fair enough. I just know I've run into this problem before.

Even "conserving social norms" could be something completely different here. Where one of Liberalism's main tenets was freedom of religion - and living free of any expectations of a State church. Therefore the Liberal was simply someone who wanted freedom in this one aspect of belief, but still was socially conservative. They simply wanted to live out their life and be left alone. It had nothing to do with morals or acting like some degenerate "libertine" (different definition of liberal heh).

R-T-BYou realize this'll be a problem for any number of reasons leading to instability until they relicense? It's not healthy, and there are way more licenses than just the GPL to choose from. Linux needs to make a hard choice now or this problem will ALWAYS be a problem.

So yes, again, symptom. I'm aware relicensing will be very hard. I still think it should happen.

But if they change to something like MIT, Linux can't be plug and play (a huge advantage of it). People would have to get drivers separately and consent to their installation.

FordGT90ConceptBut if they change to something like MIT, Linux can't be plug and play (a huge advantage of it). People would have to get drivers separately and consent to their installation.

I'm sure there's a license out there that fits their needs. If there isn't, they have a lawyer. Make one.

R-T-BI'm sure there's a license out there that fits their needs. If there isn't, they have a lawyer. Make one.

Can't they just put 'Use at your own risk. We are not responsible for anything.'? It seems to work for the financial industry here in the US.

moproblems99Can't they just put 'Use at your own risk. We are not responsible for anything.'? It seems to work for the financial industry here in the US.

That's really not the issue. It's contributors being able to rescind the rights to contributions.