Moreover, they would take ownership of not just what they paid for, but also my changes leading up to this moment
They can't do that. If you have already contributed this code to an open source project under any licence that works under copyright law, then that contribution *cannot* be revoked. You can't let people use something and then say, 'Psych! Stop using it now! It's mine and I've sold it!'
Not legal. Not possible. All that you can offer them is future changes you might make (i.e. 'completing your project') that you have not previous released. That should keep you within the law and also probably be a little bit easier to swallow, ethically.
Basically, the worst part of the ethical dilemma you are having cannot even exist, legally, so just tell them that and stop worrying about it.
Ok, I'll believe that there are regions of space that are more dense than others. I'll even believe that we are in one of them. ( This is no harder than believing in dark matter and dark energy, and it's before breakfast )
But what I find hard to believe is that we are in the exact center of such a region. So therefore, the universe should appear to have different properties in different directions. Has anybody seen that?
You have somehow managed to read this entire article, and argue four paragraphs against its thesis -- BACKWARDS.
Because the premise the article starts from is exactly the opposite of what you just spent four paragraphs rebutting.
So you're paying 80 cents a gigabyte, and nevertheless your P2P *is* throttled? (Yes, it is, that is what 'lower priority' means.) Wow, internet in New Zealand is awesome. Hey, do you know someplace local that I can get a thousand dollar no-swallow blow-job?
So... if Tom Brokaw first reported the news, and then immediately added a so-called 'personal comment' afterward broadcast along the same exact wires to all the same pairs of eyes... that would be a meaningful distinction to you?
Like I said... middle management. Tell it to them -- they'll know exactly what you're talking about.
If you think there is any significant difference between putting your opinions in the summary itself versus putting them in the first post right below the summary, then you must work in middle management.
The parent is 'offtopic'? Really?!? Does anybody around here understand how to follow an argument?
The parent was not only 'ontopic' but devastatingly handed dstar his nuts in a fruit bowl.
So... basically you own a hosting company, and you think that people who don't ask you permission *first* for what they're hosting, are engaging in 'random payment' (you make it sound like merely supporting you financially is like a hit and run or something). There is no such thing as random payment -- they are paying you because you *promised* them something in return. How much more do they need to do to get your respect? If I heard my hosting company talking like you I would quit them immediately.
Alright -- indifference is not the same as hate. I'm not sure which is really operating, and I'm not sure how much it matters.
As for the movie pi -- no this is not an example of techies being interested in finance. That's *filmmakers* being interested in both tech and finance.
A techie being interested in finance would be some real person (not an actor) going on and on about 'solving' the stock market in between bouts of criticism over the direction of the LINUX kernel. I have never met this type of person. In my opinion, it barely exists.
I think Jane Q. Public has it right -- techies mistrust finance because they tend not to believe it can actually be predicted (there are a lot of good arguments for this, not least among which is the human tendency to see patterns where there are none -- and here is where the movie PI is a great example, because pretty much all of the events in PI can be simply explained as a sick human brain running its pattern-matcher out of control). So techies tend to think that people who think they can game the market non-randomly are fooling themselves. Basically financial analysis as a *predictive* tool, is just junk science to a lot of very serious nerds. It's too much like social science. It isn't 'hard'. They don't like it. They suspect it's bullshit. And they *really* hate bullshit.
I was wrong, above. I've discovered that I *can* explain it to you. 8)
Are you a techie? If so, the fact that you think tracking your 401K or reading the odd memo from your employer constitutes getting into the 'world of finance' really does prove my point.
Well, you have a good point with the algorithms, but the fact is that the vast majority of tech geeks are not that interested in applying their skills to that particular subject matter. They just want to collect a paycheque and screw around with their devices. It's just something I've observed -- and I am 39 years old. I can't even explain to you why, but there it is. I'm not saying there are no exceptions.
I don't know *any* techies who are interested in the 'world of finance'. In fact, as a group, they tend to hate it with a passion exceeded only by that of artists.
But I hear there are a hell of a lot of *financiers* with an interest in the world of *tech*. The confusion is understandable. Update worldview accordingly.
When your money devalues exponentially, it makes absolutely no sense to spend it on "quality", it makes far more sense to simply get rid of it as fast as you can on any old crap.
So... it makes sense to you to specifically purchase crap with your rapidly devaluing currency? Because that makes no sense to me, and even from a business point of view, if currency is devaluing, then it makes more sense to me to invest in infrastructure now, before it devalues any further.
Why is it that every patent story on slashdot always obfuscates the fact that patents cover methods of implementation, and not all encompassing ideas? Is it naive to think that this isn't a purposeful ommission?
Why is it that people keep naively quoting Hanlon's Razor as if it *isn't* just a codification of the kind of foolish trust that is eminently vulnerable to Hanlon's Bane?
"Never *admit* to malice which can be explained as stupidity.'
This being the main reason malice 'data points' are harder to come by.
There is no difference between this so-called 'DRM' and the privacy options in Facebook, where I can choose who can and can't view my own personal 'rituals' with some pretty fine granularity, likely to get even finer as time progresses -- in fact it looks like aboriginals have one-upped Facebook and pushed the envelope -- I'm feeling envious.
Bill Gates: 'We have to find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people serve poorer people as well.' This is like saying, 'We have to find a way to make the aspects of height that serve tall people serve short people as well. In other words, its meaningless self-contradictory nonsense. Height serves the tall, excusively. Just as capitalism serves capital. If you don't have it or can't get it, you don't get served. You have add a *different* aspect to serve the poor.
The best time for kids to get acquainted with video games in today's world, is obviously right away. Keeping them away from it would be like keeping your kid away from talking to other kids because they might be a bad influence -- this is only likely to make the kid MORE susceptible to their influence in the future, since he will be late acquiring the skills we all need to differentiate who we should listen to from who we shouldn't. Same goes for video gamss -- the fantasy/reality distinction is a social skill that's learned. Of course it isn't harmless -- nothing is. This is why the sooner you allow your child to become conversant with this world, the better his future ability to navigate its subtleties will be.
Slashdot Mirror
Moreover, they would take ownership of not just what they paid for, but also my changes leading up to this moment
They can't do that. If you have already contributed this code to an open source project under any licence that works under copyright law, then that contribution *cannot* be revoked. You can't let people use something and then say, 'Psych! Stop using it now! It's mine and I've sold it!' Not legal. Not possible. All that you can offer them is future changes you might make (i.e. 'completing your project') that you have not previous released. That should keep you within the law and also probably be a little bit easier to swallow, ethically. Basically, the worst part of the ethical dilemma you are having cannot even exist, legally, so just tell them that and stop worrying about it.
Ok, I'll believe that there are regions of space that are more dense than others. I'll even believe that we are in one of them. ( This is no harder than believing in dark matter and dark energy, and it's before breakfast ) But what I find hard to believe is that we are in the exact center of such a region. So therefore, the universe should appear to have different properties in different directions. Has anybody seen that?
Yes, actually... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14814-galaxy-flow-hints-at-huge-masses-over-cosmic-horizon.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
We see the world in different ways. You see form. I see function. This is an oversimplification but what I am getting at is that we can both be right.
You have somehow managed to read this entire article, and argue four paragraphs against its thesis -- BACKWARDS. Because the premise the article starts from is exactly the opposite of what you just spent four paragraphs rebutting.
So you're paying 80 cents a gigabyte, and nevertheless your P2P *is* throttled? (Yes, it is, that is what 'lower priority' means.) Wow, internet in New Zealand is awesome. Hey, do you know someplace local that I can get a thousand dollar no-swallow blow-job?
So ... if Tom Brokaw first reported the news, and then immediately added a so-called 'personal comment' afterward broadcast along the same exact wires to all the same pairs of eyes ... that would be a meaningful distinction to you?
Like I said ... middle management. Tell it to them -- they'll know exactly what you're talking about.
If you think there is any significant difference between putting your opinions in the summary itself versus putting them in the first post right below the summary, then you must work in middle management.
Because the only person who could be harmed by the joke, will never get the joke. You have to get a joke to be harmed by it -- QED.
The parent is 'offtopic'? Really?!? Does anybody around here understand how to follow an argument? The parent was not only 'ontopic' but devastatingly handed dstar his nuts in a fruit bowl.
So ... basically you own a hosting company, and you think that people who don't ask you permission *first* for what they're hosting, are engaging in 'random payment' (you make it sound like merely supporting you financially is like a hit and run or something). There is no such thing as random payment -- they are paying you because you *promised* them something in return. How much more do they need to do to get your respect? If I heard my hosting company talking like you I would quit them immediately.
Alright -- indifference is not the same as hate. I'm not sure which is really operating, and I'm not sure how much it matters. As for the movie pi -- no this is not an example of techies being interested in finance. That's *filmmakers* being interested in both tech and finance. A techie being interested in finance would be some real person (not an actor) going on and on about 'solving' the stock market in between bouts of criticism over the direction of the LINUX kernel. I have never met this type of person. In my opinion, it barely exists. I think Jane Q. Public has it right -- techies mistrust finance because they tend not to believe it can actually be predicted (there are a lot of good arguments for this, not least among which is the human tendency to see patterns where there are none -- and here is where the movie PI is a great example, because pretty much all of the events in PI can be simply explained as a sick human brain running its pattern-matcher out of control). So techies tend to think that people who think they can game the market non-randomly are fooling themselves. Basically financial analysis as a *predictive* tool, is just junk science to a lot of very serious nerds. It's too much like social science. It isn't 'hard'. They don't like it. They suspect it's bullshit. And they *really* hate bullshit. I was wrong, above. I've discovered that I *can* explain it to you. 8)
Collecting lots of money does not = being interested in the world of finance.
This is pretty much the attitude toward the stock market that I find to be the majority view among the technologically inclined.
Are you a techie? If so, the fact that you think tracking your 401K or reading the odd memo from your employer constitutes getting into the 'world of finance' really does prove my point.
Well, you have a good point with the algorithms, but the fact is that the vast majority of tech geeks are not that interested in applying their skills to that particular subject matter. They just want to collect a paycheque and screw around with their devices. It's just something I've observed -- and I am 39 years old. I can't even explain to you why, but there it is. I'm not saying there are no exceptions.
I don't know *any* techies who are interested in the 'world of finance'. In fact, as a group, they tend to hate it with a passion exceeded only by that of artists. But I hear there are a hell of a lot of *financiers* with an interest in the world of *tech*. The confusion is understandable. Update worldview accordingly.
When your money devalues exponentially, it makes absolutely no sense to spend it on "quality", it makes far more sense to simply get rid of it as fast as you can on any old crap.
So ... it makes sense to you to specifically purchase crap with your rapidly devaluing currency? Because that makes no sense to me, and even from a business point of view, if currency is devaluing, then it makes more sense to me to invest in infrastructure now, before it devalues any further.
The problem is your solution is, of course, is that it is non-net neutral.
Why is it that every patent story on slashdot always obfuscates the fact that patents cover methods of implementation, and not all encompassing ideas? Is it naive to think that this isn't a purposeful ommission?
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
Why is it that people keep naively quoting Hanlon's Razor as if it *isn't* just a codification of the kind of foolish trust that is eminently vulnerable to Hanlon's Bane? "Never *admit* to malice which can be explained as stupidity.' This being the main reason malice 'data points' are harder to come by.
- SCO
- "Vista Capable"
- Get the Facts.
- Windows Genuine "Advantage"
- Fake ROI/TCO models
- Misleading security stats (multiple)
- 235 Patents
- Zune astroturf sites
- XBox sales figures
- XBox failure rates
- OOOXML and ISO corruption
- Subverting OLPC (multiple lies)
There's plenty more. Feel free to add some yourselves - this could be fun.There is no difference between this so-called 'DRM' and the privacy options in Facebook, where I can choose who can and can't view my own personal 'rituals' with some pretty fine granularity, likely to get even finer as time progresses -- in fact it looks like aboriginals have one-upped Facebook and pushed the envelope -- I'm feeling envious.
The best time for kids to get acquainted with video games in today's world, is obviously right away. Keeping them away from it would be like keeping your kid away from talking to other kids because they might be a bad influence -- this is only likely to make the kid MORE susceptible to their influence in the future, since he will be late acquiring the skills we all need to differentiate who we should listen to from who we shouldn't. Same goes for video gamss -- the fantasy/reality distinction is a social skill that's learned. Of course it isn't harmless -- nothing is. This is why the sooner you allow your child to become conversant with this world, the better his future ability to navigate its subtleties will be.