656 karma · joined October 30, 2014
I just wanted to debunk this myth. As you pointed out there is more to it.
I was thinking a lot and I think any sort of gun ownership should be tied to employment and mental status. This is the easiest to filter out people like most of the mass shooters and criminal elements. I am not sure what is required in Finland to own a gun (any kind) but I am sure that it is not like here (at least in some states). There is an entire industry built on buying guns in states that anybody can get one and smuggling it to states with more strict laws. This just helps the criminals to get armed while exposing civilians to violence.
In Switzerland some of the ex-army people can keep they assault rifles and this drives down the chance of violent crime because the criminals know that there can be a trained soldier in the next house who won't hesitate to use the weapon. I try to dig up the study about this.
Please don't use downvoting for disagreement it is not supposed to be used for that. If you disagree reply and show the points where you disagree with me.
Could you back your statement with any data?
THe only thing I got proves otherwise:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/4b2648afd425728c741b77cef3ed793e/...
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarizatio...
[1] http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarizatio...
Anyways, exceptions are sort of gotos or at least they can behave that way.
Other verification approach is to use voice like WeChat does.
http://www.biometricupdate.com/201503/instant-messaging-app-...
I balance these based on the things I would like to do in the future. I become and learn what I would like be and try to find a job where I can use those new skills.
I am not leaching on anything. You can twist words as much as you want but freedom is not defined by you or RMS or for that matter anybody else. It is pretty clearly defined in the dictionary and AGPL contradicts the foundation of freedom. If you dont want people use your software freely dont call it free software. Call it "limited use to a subset of non-profit oriented users who contribute everything back in return of using my software". That would greatly simplify the life for everybody and we could save the planet instead of haveing this thread about what is the definition of freedom and who does it apply to.
- Yeah right, please explain this to my mom. She is a user of my software. Thank you in advance.
- Even if it was about my users you cannot re-define freedom for them aka same thing applies as I wrote above
- My users are also corporations and they banned AGPL
Checkmate. :)
I measure freedom in the license context by how much I have to do using a certain licensed software.
MIT, BSDL, Apache, EPL -> nothing
AGPL -> I need to open up every single thing that touches the service that uses AGPL
Which one is more free? In my interpretation the former. Please convince me that AGPL is more free than the other licenses. On the top of all that jazz, I really dislike the GPL/Gnu agenda of defining freedom to me. Let me show you what is the definition of freedom:
"the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."
Opening open source code that I have no intention to open up sounds pretty restraining to me and also it qualifies as hindrance...
- you proved to me that AGPL is not usable in any professional system that runs in the cloud
- also proved that it does things forcefully so I am right not using it
Thank you!
http://fortune.com/2012/10/25/ellen-pao-buddy-fletcher/
I am wondering how long it takes to destroy reddit entirely.