Does your fucking boss know your fucking username?
No, but I wouldn't mind being known to have sworn on the internet on my own time. It's not like I'm promoting racial hatred.
Don't develop fucking habits that might fucking slip out when you don't fucking want them to!
I think this would be more of a concern regarding how you speak casually, than how you phrase comments that you post on the web. All things in moderation.
Was this in the US? Surely this doctor doesn't expect to be paid? Or does insurance cover unwanted procedures?
Didn't think doctors were exempt from the 'rule' that you don't get to perform unwanted highly-paid work just because you morally believe you should, and then demand payment...
Well, not if the alternative was starting a very successful business.
I agree that years in your 20s potentially squandered sounds a lot like nonsense though. As if getting a 'real job' somehow guarantees your time is spent meaningfully.
Now imagine you didn't opt in, and the plastic thingummy design/factory process/etc. was borrowed by a competitor...
I was thinking of a commodity product with little innovation involved. Maybe 'thingummy' wasn't precise enough:-P
Artificial creation of companies to escape duties or take advantage of the system is nothing new. Here, the "buddy"'s soul task is producing IP using the CAD/CAM software.
I know, that was the point. It's a massive loophole. All you've really said is 'Yes, companies have been known to exploit loopholes'.
You may be right about the specific CAD/CAM example, so I'll rephrase: your idea would be a death-blow to the producers of software used by industries which are not themselves benefited by intellectual property law. Unless you are suggesting there are no such industries, then we have a problem.
Also, what about individuals? Can a person just opt-out of copyright and download all the movies they like?
Anyway, what's the upside of all this? What advantage could it have over the current rule-of-law implementation where it applies equally, in theory, to everyone?
an agreement to opt in or opt out of the intellectual property system. If a company opts in, it is required to pay royalties for all the IP it uses, with no exceptions or other get-out clauses. Anyone who is not in the system is free to use others' IP as they wish, BUT ALSO has no protection over their own IP.
I know you're just throwing an idea out there, but, really?
Imagine you run a company that makes a popular CAD/CAM product. Obviously, to enable copyright protection, you'd want to opt-in.
Now imagine you run a company that uses that CAD/CAM software, to produce plastic thingumies. Why would you opt-in? Why would any such company opt to pay for the CAD/CAM software, other than for support?
Also, even if it's in your company's interests to opt-in, you could always have a buddy set up another company which doesn't opt-in, and have them do the work that necessitates using the expensive software.
I share your view on the unnecessary retconning (god forbid we actually have a dark history to a protagonist...), but:
No. No, they wouldn't. There are millions and millions of Dalek ships surrounding the planet. They wouldn't just keep firing once the planet popped out of existence, wiping all their forces out.
I figured this actually made a bit of sense. The Daleks seem to be aiming to destroy everything on the planet's surface - we can see the explosions from space. The weapons used for that level of bombardment would be more than enough to take out other Daleks, even if they're only exposed to their own firepower for a couple of seconds. Kevlar won't save you from even a moment's artillery bombardment, after all.
Overall though I was disappointed by the depiction of the war. It was just a generic sci-fi battle. I always imaged the 'Time War' would take some totally different form.
Still, one imagines the world would be a better place if all leaders were honestly working to improve the world for its people, rather than pursuing self-preservation, taking from other countries to better one's own, following religious nonsense, etc.
But it cannot exist, so why bother conceiving of it?
I may as well argue that "But your hypothetical world won't exist, so why bother conceiving of it?", but it's not helpful.
My point was this: I figure that, to most people, their 'perfect world' (where they are undisputed ruler) is one without suffering (or at least, is one with less suffering than the real world), because at some level everyone thinks they know better. My 'perfect world' isn't just a world where I have everything and everyone else can rot. There's little point using the word 'perfect' for that.
Of course a true 'perfect world' probably wouldn't need a ruler, or any form of government.
My point was that most people's phones are easily capable of running whatever software a person needs to type up a dissertation.
Right.
Needing a keyboard and monitor is not sufficient to need Windows.
I made no mention of Windows. Do you mean 'traditional desktop operating systems'? I agree that there's no obvious reason to carry on using big tower-style computers to power our full-size monitors+keyboards.
I don't think smartphone OSs will ever be appropriate for use on 'full size' configurations, though, just as 'desktop OSs' are no good on mobile devices (see Windows 8 and the old Windows smart-phones for obvious examples of failed attempts to impose an OS intended for one form-factor, onto the other). Apple were ahead of the curve with their put-everything-in-the-monitor solution in the iMac.
EVERY system is open to abuse, that's human nature.
You're implying that this means it's never worth weighing in the risk of abuse. Well, it is.
Those delivery workers who were goofing off were in fact guilty of abusing the current system., so... abuse happens. Was this fair to their coworkers-? No.
A minor objection from the department of Slashdot pedantry: it's not their co-workers they're wronging, it's the company that's employing them.
it'd be a little hard to see how this would be abused
I'm not so optimistic. I'm not a police officer, but I imagine there could conceivably be issues, even for honest cops.
It isn't a "full desktop" so what, it is a computer!!
Really? Ok:
The form factor counts for a lot. Big numbers alone don't enable me to type up my dissertation: for that, I need a full-size keyboard and a full-size monitor. Your smart-phone provides neither.
There's still a place for 'full desktops', and there will be for the foreseeable future.
I think maybe you do understand the BSD licence. When you put What you can do is release what you're working on under another license in addition to BSD you gave me the impression that you thought that if I fork a BSD project, my work must be released under BSD, perhaps bi-licensed with something else. I think you meant What you can do is release what you're working on under another license, but you still have to bundle the BSD licence text to fulfill the BSD licence still applying to the original BSD-licensed portion, which seems about right, but practically speaking counts for very little (as you say, it doesn't require that the BSD components be retrievable).
It's this requirement which makes it different from WTFPL/Unlicence/public domain.
darn little is incompatible with BSD
Indeed, assuming it's not the very old BSD licence. If it's the old BSD licence with the 'obnoxious advertising clause' in it, then it's not GPL compatible.
Gets me thinking.... they say recent versions of the BSD licence are GPL compatible. I wonder how. GPL allows one to make no mention of the BSD licence...
What you can do is release what you're working on under another license in addition to BSD.
No. This is totally false.
Copycenter licences are not viral, that's the whole point. It's almost the same as (but not quite the same as) releasing into the public domain.
I urge you to read up on copycenter licences, and stop spreading falsities. The introductory segment of the Wikipedia article covers this stuff.
(I thought you were going to say "You can't change the license of the original software, but you can use any licence you wish for your fork", which would have been technically correct. I could take FreeBSD, make some tiny changes (or perhaps none at all, I'm not certain on that) and release it as a proprietary OS called WooteryBSD. This doesn't mean I have the power to change the licence of FreeBSD itself, of course.)
Slashdot Mirror
Incredibly, the uploader (or someone connected to the uploader) bought an unauthorized copy on eBay for a pittance
One presumes then that although this stuff is now kept under lock and key, it wasn't always so carefully protected?
It hasn't existed yet even for five years.
This bears repeating. Even if BitCoin had shown remarkable stability over this period, it would still not be enough.
Secondly, BitCoin has failed dramatically to demonstrate said stability. It's shown just the opposite.
and some of the staff
Relevant Dilbert strip.
Now now, language :P
Does your fucking boss know your fucking username?
No, but I wouldn't mind being known to have sworn on the internet on my own time. It's not like I'm promoting racial hatred.
Don't develop fucking habits that might fucking slip out when you don't fucking want them to!
I think this would be more of a concern regarding how you speak casually, than how you phrase comments that you post on the web. All things in moderation.
This is Slashdot, not a meeting with your boss. There's no need to watch our language.
Not only does it affect only the weak and sickly (the ones who aren't going to make it anyway)
Err, what?
No, you seem to have a problem with profanity in a public forum.
Please let's keep it clean here.
I see no convincing argument for this. Your prudishness is your issue, not Seumas's.
Was this in the US? Surely this doctor doesn't expect to be paid? Or does insurance cover unwanted procedures?
Didn't think doctors were exempt from the 'rule' that you don't get to perform unwanted highly-paid work just because you morally believe you should, and then demand payment...
Apparently Google are planning on doing just that for wifi in Africa.
I presume they'll be anchored to the ground. Don't know about power.
Well, not if the alternative was starting a very successful business.
I agree that years in your 20s potentially squandered sounds a lot like nonsense though. As if getting a 'real job' somehow guarantees your time is spent meaningfully.
Getting any kind of aircraft in the air and keeping it there is a power intensive operation
Strictly speaking, this is only true of heavier-than-air aircraft.
Now imagine you didn't opt in, and the plastic thingummy design/factory process/etc. was borrowed by a competitor...
I was thinking of a commodity product with little innovation involved. Maybe 'thingummy' wasn't precise enough :-P
Artificial creation of companies to escape duties or take advantage of the system is nothing new. Here, the "buddy"'s soul task is producing IP using the CAD/CAM software.
I know, that was the point. It's a massive loophole. All you've really said is 'Yes, companies have been known to exploit loopholes'.
You may be right about the specific CAD/CAM example, so I'll rephrase: your idea would be a death-blow to the producers of software used by industries which are not themselves benefited by intellectual property law. Unless you are suggesting there are no such industries, then we have a problem.
Also, what about individuals? Can a person just opt-out of copyright and download all the movies they like?
Anyway, what's the upside of all this? What advantage could it have over the current rule-of-law implementation where it applies equally, in theory, to everyone?
an agreement to opt in or opt out of the intellectual property system. If a company opts in, it is required to pay royalties for all the IP it uses, with no exceptions or other get-out clauses. Anyone who is not in the system is free to use others' IP as they wish, BUT ALSO has no protection over their own IP.
I know you're just throwing an idea out there, but, really?
Imagine you run a company that makes a popular CAD/CAM product. Obviously, to enable copyright protection, you'd want to opt-in.
Now imagine you run a company that uses that CAD/CAM software, to produce plastic thingumies. Why would you opt-in? Why would any such company opt to pay for the CAD/CAM software, other than for support?
Also, even if it's in your company's interests to opt-in, you could always have a buddy set up another company which doesn't opt-in, and have them do the work that necessitates using the expensive software.
I share your view on the unnecessary retconning (god forbid we actually have a dark history to a protagonist...), but:
No. No, they wouldn't. There are millions and millions of Dalek ships surrounding the planet. They wouldn't just keep firing once the planet popped out of existence, wiping all their forces out.
I figured this actually made a bit of sense. The Daleks seem to be aiming to destroy everything on the planet's surface - we can see the explosions from space. The weapons used for that level of bombardment would be more than enough to take out other Daleks, even if they're only exposed to their own firepower for a couple of seconds. Kevlar won't save you from even a moment's artillery bombardment, after all.
Overall though I was disappointed by the depiction of the war. It was just a generic sci-fi battle. I always imaged the 'Time War' would take some totally different form.
Achieved a 20x (yes, 20x!) improvement in throughput compared to Perl or PCRE
You were using Ragel with C/C++, right?
However, as you pointed out, the state machine was enormous--over 1GB compiled, and over 2GB in source code
Good lord, what were you processing?
Sounds about right.
Still, one imagines the world would be a better place if all leaders were honestly working to improve the world for its people, rather than pursuing self-preservation, taking from other countries to better one's own, following religious nonsense, etc.
But it cannot exist, so why bother conceiving of it?
I may as well argue that "But your hypothetical world won't exist, so why bother conceiving of it?", but it's not helpful.
My point was this: I figure that, to most people, their 'perfect world' (where they are undisputed ruler) is one without suffering (or at least, is one with less suffering than the real world), because at some level everyone thinks they know better. My 'perfect world' isn't just a world where I have everything and everyone else can rot. There's little point using the word 'perfect' for that.
Of course a true 'perfect world' probably wouldn't need a ruler, or any form of government.
I suspect we're just arguing semantics, though.
A contradiction, surely?
In my perfect world, governed by myself, no-one suffers. Hence 'perfect'.
My point was that most people's phones are easily capable of running whatever software a person needs to type up a dissertation.
Right.
Needing a keyboard and monitor is not sufficient to need Windows.
I made no mention of Windows. Do you mean 'traditional desktop operating systems'? I agree that there's no obvious reason to carry on using big tower-style computers to power our full-size monitors+keyboards.
I don't think smartphone OSs will ever be appropriate for use on 'full size' configurations, though, just as 'desktop OSs' are no good on mobile devices (see Windows 8 and the old Windows smart-phones for obvious examples of failed attempts to impose an OS intended for one form-factor, onto the other). Apple were ahead of the curve with their put-everything-in-the-monitor solution in the iMac.
Do you actually have a point, or are you just enjoying pedantry?
In case the intent of my message somehow wasn't obvious to you: A full-size keyboard and full-size monitor are necessary, but not sufficient.
EVERY system is open to abuse, that's human nature.
You're implying that this means it's never worth weighing in the risk of abuse. Well, it is.
Those delivery workers who were goofing off were in fact guilty of abusing the current system., so ... abuse happens. Was this fair to their coworkers-? No.
A minor objection from the department of Slashdot pedantry: it's not their co-workers they're wronging, it's the company that's employing them.
it'd be a little hard to see how this would be abused
I'm not so optimistic. I'm not a police officer, but I imagine there could conceivably be issues, even for honest cops.
It isn't a "full desktop" so what, it is a computer!!
Really? Ok:
The form factor counts for a lot. Big numbers alone don't enable me to type up my dissertation: for that, I need a full-size keyboard and a full-size monitor. Your smart-phone provides neither.
There's still a place for 'full desktops', and there will be for the foreseeable future.
I think maybe you do understand the BSD licence. When you put What you can do is release what you're working on under another license in addition to BSD you gave me the impression that you thought that if I fork a BSD project, my work must be released under BSD, perhaps bi-licensed with something else. I think you meant What you can do is release what you're working on under another license, but you still have to bundle the BSD licence text to fulfill the BSD licence still applying to the original BSD-licensed portion, which seems about right, but practically speaking counts for very little (as you say, it doesn't require that the BSD components be retrievable).
It's this requirement which makes it different from WTFPL/Unlicence/public domain.
darn little is incompatible with BSD
Indeed, assuming it's not the very old BSD licence. If it's the old BSD licence with the 'obnoxious advertising clause' in it, then it's not GPL compatible.
Gets me thinking.... they say recent versions of the BSD licence are GPL compatible. I wonder how. GPL allows one to make no mention of the BSD licence...
When a logging company clearcuts an area, they have to plant trees again afterwards. Which use carbon dioxide as they grow.
I know it's not directly relevant, but this isn't true of the Amazon. Re-planting isn't always possible.
Often firewood is low quality wood that isn't useful as lumber, etc., so it would otherwise be left to rot and release greenhouse gases anyway.
I could believe that; fair point.
You can't change the license.
What you can do is release what you're working on under another license in addition to BSD.
No. This is totally false.
Copycenter licences are not viral, that's the whole point. It's almost the same as (but not quite the same as) releasing into the public domain.
I urge you to read up on copycenter licences, and stop spreading falsities. The introductory segment of the Wikipedia article covers this stuff.
(I thought you were going to say "You can't change the license of the original software, but you can use any licence you wish for your fork", which would have been technically correct. I could take FreeBSD, make some tiny changes (or perhaps none at all, I'm not certain on that) and release it as a proprietary OS called WooteryBSD. This doesn't mean I have the power to change the licence of FreeBSD itself, of course.)