Free software means that the users have the freedom to run, edit, contribute to, and share the software

We can't compete with Apple, we can't compete with Google, directly, in the field of resources. What we can eventually do is head count and heart count. We can compete on the ground of ideology because ours is better.

2. Roleplay

1. Life-like:

Thus is the problem of Rich and Poor to be solved. The laws of accumulation will be left free; the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor; intrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself.

the false reality governed by images facilitates the work of the cap capitalist system the system gives you the illusion of having Free Will and choosing what you consume but in reality everything has already been decided for you

GPL "infects" other parts of a system to combat a work-around which was used to violate the software freedom of the user, by firewalling sections of GPL'ed code from the rest of the system.

The point of GPL licenses is to protect the user of the software, not the developer. If you want "protection" as a developer, use MIT (disclaimer of warranty). GPL "infects" other parts of a system to combat a work-around which was used to violate the software freedom of the user, by firewalling sections of GPL'ed code from the rest of the system. If you don't care about your users' software freedom in the first place, then (L)GPL is the wrong choice.

Other kinds of works are also used for practical activities, including recipes for cooking, educational works such as textbooks, reference works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, fonts for displaying paragraphs of text, circuit diagrams for hardware for people to build, and patterns for making useful (not merely decorative) objects with a 3D printer. Since these are not software, the free software movement strictly speaking doesn't cover them; but the same reasoning applies and leads to the same conclusion: these works should carry the four freedoms.

If any of them is missing or inadequate, the program is proprietary (nonfree)

Users' control over the program requires four essential freedoms.

The first two freedoms mean each user can exercise individual control over the program

Either way, they give the program's developer power over the users, power that no one should have.

When a program respects users' freedom and community, we call it “free software.”

computer users' freedom—for users to control the software they use, rather than vice versa

However, the presence of nonfree software in the computer is an obstacle to verifying that the computer is loyal, or making sure it remains so.

For instance, the AMT functionality in recent Intel processors runs nonfree software that can talk to Intel remotely. Unless disabled, this makes the system disloyal.

Free/Open Licenses Non-free Licenses

You need to understand that the person you are reaching out to has probably spent 100s of hours working on this project, for free. They do not owe you anything. The maintainers are extending a courtesy by giving away their work for free and then making themselves available to support it. The point is, you should try and be nice when filing for support. The maintainer of the project has literally no obligation to help you.

hard problem proposed here has been suggested by David Chalmers as satisfying the following requirements

I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it comes to freedom. Life without freedom is oppression, and that applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives.

in your book one of the quotes was Free Will is the ultimate cause of reality

Today, data is abundant, but for the most part, unusable. Seventy percent of a data scientist’s job is just cleansing data. The modern software architecture encourages data to be hoarded only accessible through proprietary APIs. And, even with proprietary APIs the market for data integrations is expected to grow to a trillion dollars by the end of the decade. When humanity is spending the GDP of Indonesia just so that the data in System X can work with the data in System Y, the field of software engineering has failed us. So much data - data that could be used by new startups and nonprofits that couldn’t exist today - goes unused because it’s so difficult to access.

The problem is not about Open Source or Free Software. The problem is everything else.

free software is provided, "without liability". That rule should be enforced.

When publicly distributed, the open-source code is hidden behind layers of indirection bypassing any packaging/integration effort, relying instead on virtualisation and downloading dependencies on the fly. Thanks to those strategies, corporations could benefit from open source code without any consequence. The open source code is, anyway, mostly hosted and developed on proprietary platforms.

NAFTA displays the classic free-trade quandary: Diffuse benefits with concentrated costs.

Let the adventures begin, download today!

More than three quarters of South Africans with children in theirhousehold say they would read more if they had more access tomaterials that are free, based on interesting topics, based on stories orinformation that is relatable to them, or available in their preferred languag

lots of commercial products because the reality is these often have a better UX and larger user numbers.

With her, on her, what you will.

That we should, with joy, pleasance revel and applause,transform ourselves into beasts!

You have lost no reputation at all unless yourepute yourself such a loser.

According to Francis Moore, who visited the settlement in its secondyear of operation, two “peculiar” customs stood out: both alcohol and dark-skinned people were prohibited. “No slavery is allowed, nor negroes,”Moore wrote. As a sanctuary for “free white people,” Georgia “would notpermit slaves, for slaves starve the poor laborer.” Free labor encouragedpoor white men in sober cultivation and steeled them in the event they hadto defend the land from outside aggression. It also promised to cure settlersof that most deadly of English diseases, idleness.41

The old man looked like an Egyptian priest, making Gordian knots for the temple of Ammon

With the rising popularity of ebooks, it’s more important than ever that we have open hardware and software readers that work on our terms.

Any other educational assistance that is excludable from gross income (tax free),

This feature is a planned EE feature and so it is being tracked there. We currently have no plans for it to be in CE, so that is why this issue is closed.

For consumers, the equivalent of "build or buy" could be called "ads or nerds". "Ads" meaning ad-supported services, like consumer Gmail or Facebook. "Nerds" meaning hobbyist services based on free software and commodity hardware.

The model of Spotify in particular - paid tier alongside a free tier with ads - seems like the simplest sustainable solution I see. Having paid features is the most obvious way to make money, but you want to enable adoption as much as you can. It's the same idea as companies dangling "free trial" in front of you at every turn - in a competitive environment, you want to remove barriers for users to try your product or service. This is essentially the idea of a "loss leader" for a grocery store, or any business really.

By its very nature, moderation is a form of censorship. You, as a community, space, or platform are deciding who and what is unacceptable. In Substack’s case, for example, they don’t allow pornography but they do allow Nazis. That’s not “free speech” but rather a business decision. If you’re making moderation based on financials, fine, but say so. Then platform users can make choices appropriately.

It would be good to remind them that free speech does not mean free reach. There is no right to algorithmic amplification.

As we’ll explore in depth in a forthcoming article, these supply chain emissions can account for a significant portion of the total life-cycle emissions from gas.

The industrial worker now has twentyhours of free time a week that his grandfather did not have.

De Van der Pekbuurt staat op de rol om als een der eerste Amsterdamse wijken van het aardgas af te gaan.Beeld Jean-Pierre Jans

Free jazz

There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL)

depth interviews of 24 car-free people, we found that they have embraced car-free living in order to ‘go green’; pursue health and well-being; and achieve convenience and

Google allowed third parties to build their own Wave services (be it private or commercial) because it wanted the Wave protocol to replace the e-mail protocol.[2][16][17] Initially, Google was the only Wave service provider, but it was hoped that other service providers would launch their own Wave services, possibly designing their own unique web-based clients as is common with many email service providers.

is becoming a minority

Identifiers are an area wherethe needs of libraries and publish-ing are not well supported by thecommercial developmen

Unfortunately all SMS/voice gateway are owned by paid services, thus there is no such thing as open-source, that I can recommend.

Renewables and nuclear energy will dominate the growth of global electricity supply over the next three years, together meeting on average more than 90% of the additional demand

Big tech has benefited from an educational dynamic that consistently underfunds public education but demands increased technology to prepare the workers of the future, providing low-cost solutions in exchange for data and the potential for future product loyalty

‘Running on Emptiness – The Pathology of Civilisation’John Zerzan (2002) All religions have problems with ‘unbelievers’, but that response is insignificant compared to their visceral hatred of ‘apostates’.

Around 40 million homes (or roughly 35 percent of all U.S. houses) use a gas stove to make food.

Vulnerable users increasingly felt the effects of Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance, that if we include in a more tolerant discussion those who are less tolerant, they will prevent the discussion from being fully open. (Thus, in Popper's view, some level of "intolerance towards intolerance" must be exercised even by the tolerant.)

Lulubox apk, the best Android app for getting free skins Lulubox is an app that enables features of popular games using unlimited skins. This free Android application is compatible with the latest Android versions. With this Lulubox apk, you are allowed to install the latest version of Lulubox with the latest skins updates on any Android device that runs Android 4.4 or later. List of games compatible with Lulubox 6.6.2 Fortnight, Pubg Mobile, PUBG: NEW STATE, 8 Ball Pool, Clash of Clans, Brawl Stars, Mini Militia, Free Fire, Carrom Pool, Mobile Legends: Bang Bang, Ludo king, PUBG MOBILE: Aftermath, Dream League Soccer 2021, and many more. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); How does Lulubox works? Lulubox is a third-party application that injects skins. When someone requests skins while playing a game, it sends required skins for the game and enables features of the game even premium features. All you need to do is just download Lulubox apk and install it on your device. It automatically installs all of the available skins locally on your device. This would help to load skins faster than loading from a cloud service.

I used common sense media for years as my kids are 9/10 now... Use kids-in-mind.com instead. My guess is that common sense media is fine with 1/10th (or less) of the traffic they used to have, if the 1/10th is paying...Not gonna pay for something I use maybe once a month to check one category, it is disappointing though.

which is why we model the future as something we can influence.

Given our lack of complete microscopic information, the question we should be asking is, "does the best theory of human beings include an element of free choice?"

The problem with this is that it mixes levels of description. If we know the exact quantum state of all of our atoms and forces, in principle Laplace's Demon can predict our future. But we don't know that, and we never will, and therefore who cares? What we are trying to do is to construct an effective understanding of human beings, not of electrons and nuclei.

The consequence argument points out that deterministic laws imply that the future isn't really up for grabs; it's determined by the present state just as surely as the past is. So we don't really have choices about anything.

while we can still influence later times

Of course, just because it can be compatible with the laws of nature, doesn't mean that the concept of free will actually is the best way to talk about emergent human behaviors.

The concept of baseball is emergent rather than fundamental, but it's no less real for all of that. Likewise for free will. We can be perfectly orthodox materialists and yet believe in free will, if what we mean by that is that there is a level of description that is useful in certain contexts and that includes "autonomous agents with free will" as crucial ingredients.

When we talk about air in a room, we can describe it by listing the properties of each and every molecule, or we speak in coarse-grained terms about things like temperature and pressure. One description is more "fundamental," in that its regime of validity is wider; but both have a regime of validity, and as long as we are in that regime, the relevant concepts have a perfectly good claim to "existing."

But in either event, they believe that our freedom of choice cannot be reduced to our constituent particles evolving according to the laws of physics.

There are people who do believe in free will in this sense; that we need to invoke a notion of free will as an essential ingredient in reality, over and above the conventional laws of nature. These are libertarians, in the metaphysical sense rather than the political-philosophy sense.

When people make use of a concept and simultaneously deny its existence, what they typically mean is that the concept in question is nowhere to be found in some "fundamental" description of reality.

John Searle has joked that people who deny free will, when ordering at a restaurant, should say "just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get."

Likewise, people who question the existence of free will don't have any trouble making choices.

It's possible to deny the existence of something while using it all the time. Julian Barbour doesn't believe time is real, but he is perfectly capable of showing up to a meeting on time.

Working backwards, Google isn’t legally compelled to give Mark a hearing about his digital life (Sixth Amendment); they are wrong not to. Google isn’t legally compelled to give Mark due process before permanently deleting his digital life (Fifth Amendment); they are wrong not to. Google isn’t legally compelled to not search all of the photographs uploaded to Google (by default, if you click through all of the EULA’s); they are…well, this is where it gets complicated.

In short, the questions about Google’s behavior are not about free speech; they do, though, touch on other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. For example: The Fourth Amendment bars “unreasonable searches and seizures”; while you can make the case that search warrants were justified once the photos in question were discovered, said photos were only discovered because Mark’s photo library was indiscriminately searched in the first place. The Fifth Amendment says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Mark lost all of his data, email account, phone number, and everything else Google touched forever with no due process at all. The Sixth Amendment is about the rights to a trial; Mark was not accused of any crime in the real world, but when it came to his digital life Google was, as I noted, “judge, jury, and executioner” (the Seventh Amendment is, relatedly, about the right to a jury trial for all controversies exceeding $20).

I found this paragraph in a New York Times article about Elon Musk’s attempts to buy Twitter striking: The plan jibes with Mr. Musk’s, Mr. Dorsey’s and Mr. Agrawal’s beliefs in unfettered free speech. Mr. Musk has criticized Twitter for moderating its platform too restrictively and has said more speech should be allowed. Mr. Dorsey, too, grappled with the decision to boot former President Donald J. Trump off the service last year, saying he did not “celebrate or feel pride” in the move. Mr. Agrawal has said that public conversation provides an inherent good for society. Their positions have increasingly become outliers in a global debate over free speech online, as more people have questioned whether too much free speech has enabled the spread of misinformation and divisive content. In other words, the culture has changed; the law persists, but it does not and, according to the New York Times, ought not apply to private companies.

Munroe, though, assumes the opposite: liberty, in this case the freedom of speech, is an artifact of law, only stretching as far as government action, and no further. Pat Kerr, who wrote a critique of this comic on Medium in 2016, argued that this was the exact wrong way to think about free speech: Coherent definitions of free speech are actually rather hard to come by, but I would personally suggest that it’s something along the lines of “the ability to voluntarily express (and receive) opinions without suffering excessive penalties for doing so”. This is a liberal principle of tolerance towards others. It’s not an absolute, it isn’t comprehensive, it isn’t rigorously defined, and it isn’t a law. What it is is a culture.

This Article is a manifestation of Madison’s hope. Start with the reality that it seems quaint in retrospect to think that any of the Bill of Rights would be preserved absent the force of law. This is one of the great lessons of the Internet and the rise of Aggregators: when suppressing speech entailed physically disrupting printing presses or arresting pamphleteers, then restricting government, which retains a monopoly on real world violence, was sufficient to preserve speech. Along the same lines, there was no need to demand due process or a restriction on search and seizure on any entity but the government, because only the government could take your property or send you to jail.