You can state that Hans Reiser murdered his wife because the court found him guilty of that.
Before he was convicted, damming evidence was being revealed, and a great many people here on/. were rabidly defending him...
Assange has not been found guilty by any court so I'd say he is to be assumed guilty until a judge decides that he really is guilty.
Did Assange commit a crime? The only correct answer is: "I don't know."
Those saying he's guilty are certainly being biased.
HOWEVER, those saying it's all just a massive government conspiracy are ALSO being quite biased.
And what's more, the later is an extraordinary claim, with NO proof to back it up. The fact that a Wikileaks supporter is one of the accusers certainly makes it sound even more far-fetched.
And finally, Assange is throwing dirt on his own case by CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY, IMPLYING that the US Government is framing him, and whenever called on it, backpedaling from those statements, because he didn't explicitly state any of it. He just HAPPENS to talk about US government dirt tricks in the same breath as he talks about SOMEONE trying to smear him...
So, the upshot is: I don't know whether there's any basis to these accusations, but he's certainly acting dishonestly, and there's certainly no evidence of these dirty tricks he keeps talking about.
Strange, also, that the founder of Wikileaks would like to keep certain matters private, and not inform the press as to the facts of the situation. If only we had an investigative organization that would provide the press with such private information...
The risk of getting caught far outweighs the potential reward; especially if you can't spend any of it without drawing attention.
The best moles are the ones doing it for non-monetary reasons. For one, because they're much harder to catch. So why do it? Ego? Misplaced idealism? (Foreign) patriotism? Could be many more. People that sell secrets aren't doing it to accumulate a nest-egg.
And AFAIK, propellers are actually easier to maintain than jets, since they have much simpler parts.
A propeller is a dumb chunk of metal. A jet IS the engine. Hence, turbo props. Traditional propeller+piston aircraft are most definitely harder and more expensive to maintain than jet engines. Remember, piston engines were being torn down and rebuild an order of magnitude more often than the earliest jet engines needed to be, and has decreased further still in the time since...
The main advantages to jets are ability to burn fuel at higher altitude and ability to attain higher speeds.
You are mistaken. Jets dominated the industry because they were cheaper to maintain, and more reliable. The higher speeds were a bit of luck. The fact that the Concorde isn't still around, combined with the continued existence of commercial turbo-prop aircraft should be enough to disprove your belief right off.
I suppose I can see how someone could have rated -maybe- 5000 movies/shows. But, 50,000? I can not quite fathom that.
Consider the possibility that you HATE show XYZ. Netflix, however, keeps recommending it to you, no matter how many times you rate a disk in the series poorly (I've seen this myself). It's not at all hard to imagine seeing two or three episodes, and rating 100 disks as 1-star. Of course that's a rather extreme example, but the point is valid, and it's certainly not hard to get from watching 5,000 shows, to rating 50,000, without any dishonest behavior.
I have an Aunt that worked at walmart as a checker for most of her life. She was a single mom and that job bought her a house and helped her raise 5 children (father was a deadbeat) then Walmart paid, in full, the entire college tuition of her eldest daughter through a program walmart has.
I can name numerous companies who have employed plenty of people for their lifetime, and offered a few perks as well. That doesn't change the fact that they're a crappy place to work, and pay about half the market rate...
If you don't want to buy Chinese made crap, then don't Walmarts selling what people want to buy.
You could say the same about street merchants and the like. Wal-marts scams are only slightly less obvious. And make no mistake, Wal-mart creates the demand when they advertise some dirt cheap junk (eg.) TV, pretending it's going to even work decently on day 1 (like all the other TVs).
And what does Walmart get out of selling you junk? Well, they buy that TV for $10, and sell it to you for $45, making a killing, rather than just a reasonable profit margin on those decent quality $50 TVs.
And no, this isn't a secret. Check out Frontline's story on Wal-mart for several real examples of exactly that.
We all know cellular plans are ridiculously over priced...
I don't know that, but then again, I've been paying $50/mo for unlimited everything for years now and never gave it a second thought.
look at any other country in the world and it's obvious.
Hmm. I seem to have run out of large English-speaking countries. You'll have to help me out here, because I'me not finding these amazing deals you speak of.
Walmart comes in and not only undercuts everyone else, they undercut them to the point it makes the other carriers look like idiots.
The fact that you're unaware of several nice cheap cell phone plans doesn't make "everyone else" "look like idiots"... Just you. It is, however, a testament to the power of advertising, that you'll go give some big name twice as much money for nothing special, rather than seek out the cheaper options...
And just like every other market they enter, this doesnt just mean walmart shoppers get lower prices, it means all the other carriers will have to drop their prices as well to prevent their customers from leaving in droves.
Right. I just LOVE the fact that Levi's Jeans were made in the USA for a century or so, right up until they went into business with Wal-mart, then outsourced all their operations to 3rd world countries so that they could provide the kinds of prices Wal-mart demanded, and a similarly reduced quality, which then infected every other retailer... THANKS WAL-MART!
the company I despise the most in this country is the one that came up with the smartest mobile phone plan.
Not really... Walmart has always sold crap products, for $2.13 less than halfway decent products... Is this any different?
Well, Boost Mobile's unlimited talk/text/data plan is $50/mo., so $45 isn't saving much. MetroPCS is cheaper, but they're coverage outside major cities is horrid (and not great inside cities, either). Other plans are getting down there, too.
The statistics are that it's dead, Jim - participation is at an all-time low.
Thanks, because I didn't already say:
CZ is certainly far lower volume than WP, but those kinds of comparisons completely and totally fail to account for quality, where there is practically no vandalism of CZ, and an overwhelming majority of edits to WP are related to exactly that.
I'll take a highly accurate, well-written but low-volume Wiki over the alternative any day.
A man is an enemy of Agency X; a man is found dead or dying. Who is ever to connect the two facts with an assassination authoritatively? It's one thing to have suspicion, but it's completely another thing to have proof. [...] The KGB was never proved to have been responsible.
The KGB wasn't usually too concerned about whether you could prove they did something, or not. Just ask Alexander Litvinenko. "we are 100% sure who administered the poison, where and how"
That is the most overtly slanted article I've ever seen. Since when does one random person's comment on a blog consititute a useful citation about (eg.) all of academia? It's nothing more than an attack piece, plain and simple.
CZ continues to grow. Contributions continue, and it's most certainly not all (or even mostly) homeopathy, or any other nonsense you can name.
CZ is certainly far lower volume than WP, but those kinds of comparisons completely and totally fail to account for quality, where there is practically no vandalism of CZ, and an overwhelming majority of edits to WP are related to exactly that.
Even if it does eventually fail, that won't prove whether the model is a good one or not, anyhow.
If you're doing something that truly works as a shell script, and isn't part of a larger app, I agree. However, PIL likely performs better, and it removes the shell as an issue -- if you thought SQL injection was bad, wait till you have people exploiting your shell commands. You can do it safely, but why would you bother, when you've got libraries that accept Python (or Perl, or Ruby) native arguments, rather than forcing you to deal with commandline arguments? Why do you want to check return values, when you can have these native libraries throw exceptions?
I have to disagree with you there, for a couple reasons:
The command-line version came first, has been widely tested and debugged, can be used no matter what the language of your application, and will always be the standard and won't ever disappear or be unmaintained even if the libraries for language X are.
And I've seen no end of (mainly Perl) libraries that re-impliment whatever command, poorly. I've probably wasted 3 months of my life on a stupid perl script because my predicessor used Net::SFTP, and I've had to debug endless problems on different sites where their peculiar SSH/SFTP server works with ssh/scp/sftp but NOT with Net::SFTP, or worse, is terribly intermittent, perhaps working for 10 minutes then dropping the connection. Using batch mode SFTP would have taken a little longer to start with, but would have avoided all these problems.
In short, if the command-line program doesn't work, EVERYONE is going to care. If the hacked-up reimplementation for language X doesn't work, you and the 10 people who use it are on your own.
Centizendium is the half-way point between the free-for-all of Wikipedia, and the extremely stuffy "authoritative" wikis (at that point, really, why bother?).
With CZ, you are required to use your real name, and if you largely write an article and hang around to maintain it, you do get a degree of ownership to it, with etiquette and policy dictating that any other contributors merely suggest their recomended changes to the original author via the talk page, rather than everyone willy-nilly making changes as if they're all experts on the subject.
Similarly, articles are reviewed by experts (required to have a degree) and those reviewed version are the ones which stick, while you have to go out of your way to see the revised versions.
Have a look in to the brothels in Nevada some time (you can look at documentaries rather than going there). You find that when it is legal, the problems go away.
You're omitting the most important detail. Since there are legal prostitutes in Nevada, does that mean there is NO illegal prostitution, or that it is vastly reduced compared to elsewhere? If so, please do provide some evidence to indicate that is the case. If not, then legalizing it doesn't improve matters at all, only serving to expand the industry, and perhaps moving the high-class hookers out the the shadows.
The F/OSS movement exists as a response to the increasingly Draconian nature of copyright, [...] but hacking the system does not mean approval of the system. The ideal situation would simply be for open source licenses to be unnecessary.
Except that's not true. Sure, copyright laws are getting ridiculous, but a world without copyright would NOT be an open-source world... It would just be one where reverse-engineering, and sharing of someone else's software is legal.
Stallman/FSF/et al. don't want a world without copyright. Stallman created the GPL in response to binary-only software, which wouldn't change. Stallman/FSF/et al. want a world where individuals and companies are COMPELLED to provide source code along with any binaries. Rolling back the restrictions on copyright wouldn't do that, nor would eliminating copyright entirely.
First, I would think slashdotter's would be for this. Remember, the GPL and other "free" or "open" licenses all get their power of enforcement from copyright law. So if you want strong open source software licenses, you need strong copyright protection.
There is a world of difference between commercial and non-commercial. The porn industry long ago made a pact to ignore non-commercial distribution of their works, and only going after those who would illegally sell it. Freeware software licenses before the GPL got popular were commonly "free for educational and non-commercial use". Fair-use rules make a clear distinction that commercial use is in a different class than educational and non-commercial use. Most people, similarly, don't believe non-profit re-distribution of copyright material should be a prosecutable offense, but only those illegally selling other people's work...
I expect most GPL software authors will largely be only mildly annoyed by non-commercial distribution of their code that doesn't meet license requirements. All lawsuits thus far has been against commercial entities, using GPLed software in in their commercial products, while violating the license. Sure, maybe someone will get miffed when some printer manufacturer uses P2P to quietly distribute a binary-only driver based on Ghostscript or some such, but I wouldn't expect significant outrage. And I certainly wouldn't expect ignoring those cases to weaken the GPL.
Not sure if he lacked "big screen" presence, just had a couple bad breaks on the big screen, or if he got typecast by Star Trek.
1) His presence seems just fine. Besides his starring role in Star Trek and subsequent films, I've seen him in many other films before, and he had no problem playing the lead. 2) Hmm. Always hard to argue with that, whether true or not. 3) When Star Trek: TOS ended, he was just shy of 40, and had appeared in DOZENS of TV shows and films. In short, he took the role on Star Trek BECAUSE he was washed-up, not the other way around. It could only possibly have resuscitated his career, but he blew that.
And as the other person said, Shatner had both a large ego and a unique ability to puncture that ego himself.
He may make fun of himself NOW, but it's a good 30 years too late.
Not sure about the bad blood between him and the other stars. Could just be the nature of the game (He and Nimoy were bigger stars and got different treatment).
Nimoy isn't hated by anyone, and while he's good friends with Shatner, he acknowledges just how pompous he is, writing it off as just his personality. Honestly, how many spoken-word albums does someone have to release before it's brutally obvious to everyone how full of himself he is?
Most of the world gets it. Shatner has a huge ego, and a desire to have it stroked. Some people can brush it off and still get along with the guy (eg. Nimoy), while others (most?) dislike it to varying degrees.
the manufacturer of the software can bind ME (despite the fact that I've never actually had contact with them), but I can't bind them (for exactly the same reason)?
Sure, you can bind them, but you'll have to delivery your license by courier or some such. It's a simple fact that, when you buy a product, you're getting something physical from them, but they don't get anything physical from you.
Netscape got into trouble just because their EULA was BELOW the "download" button on their web page, so users might reasonably not have seen it, and therefore could not be bound to it. Your own contract posted on some random website??? Not a chance in hell it'll be upheld.
The EULA of the game you just installed? No matter how well you tuned it out, it remains a binding contract.
Now, if, on the other hand, you had paid for the software with a sealed envelope that had a contract wrapped around it, THEN you've got a chance it would be binding to them... The only problem being "them" is just some retail store, and not the makers of the game, who you really want to bind.
The problem is that most countries rely on ever increasing population for their economy to strive
First-world countries are overwhelmingly facing aging populations. The US is one of the only with a substantially growing population, and that is largely because of massive immigration, rather than high birth rates by Americans.
And let's not forget China's one-child policy.
In short, you have no idea what you are talking about.
You're still just wasting everyone's time. Yes, Linux is more popular than BSD, therefore it gets more code contributions, and money from companies and individuals. The onus is on you to prove your assertion the license has ANYTHING to do with those facts.
You continue to simply ignore all counter-examples, BSD isn't fragmented because of its license. Fressh is nowhere near as popular as OpenSSH. etc. Goodbye.
I don't see how this could really be the case. Every job postive I've ever seen doesn't list a MAXIMUM, but a minimum, and they're generally pretty damn high minimums at that... A BS and 10 years of experience? You can't possibly be a young guy and meet the requirments for 90% of jobs I see listed out there.
it's actually a reasonably good system for me as a diner.
It's a prisoner's dilemma, actually.
Waiters and waitresses aren't paid a living wage, and if everyone stiffed the people who waited on them, we'd have to raise the wages of the servers and roll that into the food prices.
Clearly, that would be horrible! They'd have financial stability, and all the horrors that come with that. We should model all our industries on street-performers...
Then there'd be no incentive except professional pride for a server to make an effort to take care of me
There are MANY jobs out there which involve salaried employees dealing with the public. The world has not ended. You may feel better stiffing a lousy waitress, but don't blindly believe that's the most effective method of dealing with human resource issues. I guarantee, more than a few have already discovered that not working for that measly tip is loads easier, and the take-home difference isn't enough to matter. In those cases, they have to be dealt with by traditional methods, anyhow. It might not give the diners the catharsis they crave, but it works.
there's no way to eliminate the possibility of freeloading without eliminating incentive pay
I don't know about you, but I have employee reviews. Those I've worked with get to chime-in on how well or poorly I've done my job, and directly affect how much I will get paid...
In short, include a gratuity in the up-front price, and just have each customer rank their waitress to determine how much of that she gets. Problem solved. The problem with that? Restaurants don't want to advertise their REAL prices. They'd rather hide as much of the bill as they can. Phone companies are learning from them.
Now as this applies to open source projects
Umm, no. End of story. Software licenses can COMPEL whatever behavior they want, with no ill effects. A license that requires contributing 1% of the money you earn through using the code, back to the project, would codify what you expect, without closing-up the source, or otherwise making it any less useful. Many open source projects (MAME/MESS come to mind) are open source, yet include restrictions on commercial use in their license. If you don't include a similar clause, you have no-one to blame.
Slashdot Mirror
Before he was convicted, damming evidence was being revealed, and a great many people here on /. were rabidly defending him...
Did Assange commit a crime?
The only correct answer is: "I don't know."
Those saying he's guilty are certainly being biased.
HOWEVER, those saying it's all just a massive government conspiracy are ALSO being quite biased.
And what's more, the later is an extraordinary claim, with NO proof to back it up. The fact that a Wikileaks supporter is one of the accusers certainly makes it sound even more far-fetched.
And finally, Assange is throwing dirt on his own case by CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY, IMPLYING that the US Government is framing him, and whenever called on it, backpedaling from those statements, because he didn't explicitly state any of it. He just HAPPENS to talk about US government dirt tricks in the same breath as he talks about SOMEONE trying to smear him...
So, the upshot is: I don't know whether there's any basis to these accusations, but he's certainly acting dishonestly, and there's certainly no evidence of these dirty tricks he keeps talking about.
Strange, also, that the founder of Wikileaks would like to keep certain matters private, and not inform the press as to the facts of the situation. If only we had an investigative organization that would provide the press with such private information...
The best moles are the ones doing it for non-monetary reasons. For one, because they're much harder to catch. So why do it? Ego? Misplaced idealism? (Foreign) patriotism? Could be many more. People that sell secrets aren't doing it to accumulate a nest-egg.
A propeller is a dumb chunk of metal. A jet IS the engine. Hence, turbo props. Traditional propeller+piston aircraft are most definitely harder and more expensive to maintain than jet engines. Remember, piston engines were being torn down and rebuild an order of magnitude more often than the earliest jet engines needed to be, and has decreased further still in the time since...
You are mistaken. Jets dominated the industry because they were cheaper to maintain, and more reliable. The higher speeds were a bit of luck. The fact that the Concorde isn't still around, combined with the continued existence of commercial turbo-prop aircraft should be enough to disprove your belief right off.
That's true NOW. About 3 years ago, it was not.
Consider the possibility that you HATE show XYZ. Netflix, however, keeps recommending it to you, no matter how many times you rate a disk in the series poorly (I've seen this myself). It's not at all hard to imagine seeing two or three episodes, and rating 100 disks as 1-star. Of course that's a rather extreme example, but the point is valid, and it's certainly not hard to get from watching 5,000 shows, to rating 50,000, without any dishonest behavior.
In fact a quick google search is EXACTLY how I came up with those links in the first place. Try again.
I can name numerous companies who have employed plenty of people for their lifetime, and offered a few perks as well. That doesn't change the fact that they're a crappy place to work, and pay about half the market rate...
You could say the same about street merchants and the like. Wal-marts scams are only slightly less obvious. And make no mistake, Wal-mart creates the demand when they advertise some dirt cheap junk (eg.) TV, pretending it's going to even work decently on day 1 (like all the other TVs).
And what does Walmart get out of selling you junk? Well, they buy that TV for $10, and sell it to you for $45, making a killing, rather than just a reasonable profit margin on those decent quality $50 TVs.
And no, this isn't a secret. Check out Frontline's story on Wal-mart for several real examples of exactly that.
I don't know that, but then again, I've been paying $50/mo for unlimited everything for years now and never gave it a second thought.
Okay! Let's look at Canada:
http://www.tomharriscellular.ca/cellphone-smartphone-plans-bc-ab?g=2
Oh well. Maybe the UK:
http://www.compareplans.co.uk/vodafone.htm
No? How about Australia:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Mobile-Cell-Phone-Cap-Plans---Optus-Business-Australia&id=937751
Hmm. I seem to have run out of large English-speaking countries. You'll have to help me out here, because I'me not finding these amazing deals you speak of.
The fact that you're unaware of several nice cheap cell phone plans doesn't make "everyone else" "look like idiots"... Just you. It is, however, a testament to the power of advertising, that you'll go give some big name twice as much money for nothing special, rather than seek out the cheaper options...
Right. I just LOVE the fact that Levi's Jeans were made in the USA for a century or so, right up until they went into business with Wal-mart, then outsourced all their operations to 3rd world countries so that they could provide the kinds of prices Wal-mart demanded, and a similarly reduced quality, which then infected every other retailer... THANKS WAL-MART!
Not really... Walmart has always sold crap products, for $2.13 less than halfway decent products... Is this any different?
Well, Boost Mobile's unlimited talk/text/data plan is $50/mo., so $45 isn't saving much. MetroPCS is cheaper, but they're coverage outside major cities is horrid (and not great inside cities, either). Other plans are getting down there, too.
STOP BUYING CHEAP CRAP CFLs FROM (mainly) WALMART.
Right. Who uses MP3s anymore? Or MPEG-2? Or H.264. Nobody, of course. There's absolutely no value to software after 6 years.
Thanks, because I didn't already say:
CZ is certainly far lower volume than WP, but those kinds of comparisons completely and totally fail to account for quality, where there is practically no vandalism of CZ, and an overwhelming majority of edits to WP are related to exactly that.
I'll take a highly accurate, well-written but low-volume Wiki over the alternative any day.
The KGB wasn't usually too concerned about whether you could prove they did something, or not. Just ask Alexander Litvinenko. "we are 100% sure who administered the poison, where and how"
That is the most overtly slanted article I've ever seen. Since when does one random person's comment on a blog consititute a useful citation about (eg.) all of academia? It's nothing more than an attack piece, plain and simple.
The statistics are vastly more useful, and speak for themselves:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics
CZ continues to grow. Contributions continue, and it's most certainly not all (or even mostly) homeopathy, or any other nonsense you can name.
CZ is certainly far lower volume than WP, but those kinds of comparisons completely and totally fail to account for quality, where there is practically no vandalism of CZ, and an overwhelming majority of edits to WP are related to exactly that.
Even if it does eventually fail, that won't prove whether the model is a good one or not, anyhow.
I have to disagree with you there, for a couple reasons:
The command-line version came first, has been widely tested and debugged, can be used no matter what the language of your application, and will always be the standard and won't ever disappear or be unmaintained even if the libraries for language X are.
And I've seen no end of (mainly Perl) libraries that re-impliment whatever command, poorly. I've probably wasted 3 months of my life on a stupid perl script because my predicessor used Net::SFTP, and I've had to debug endless problems on different sites where their peculiar SSH/SFTP server works with ssh/scp/sftp but NOT with Net::SFTP, or worse, is terribly intermittent, perhaps working for 10 minutes then dropping the connection. Using batch mode SFTP would have taken a little longer to start with, but would have avoided all these problems.
In short, if the command-line program doesn't work, EVERYONE is going to care. If the hacked-up reimplementation for language X doesn't work, you and the 10 people who use it are on your own.
Centizendium is the half-way point between the free-for-all of Wikipedia, and the extremely stuffy "authoritative" wikis (at that point, really, why bother?).
With CZ, you are required to use your real name, and if you largely write an article and hang around to maintain it, you do get a degree of ownership to it, with etiquette and policy dictating that any other contributors merely suggest their recomended changes to the original author via the talk page, rather than everyone willy-nilly making changes as if they're all experts on the subject.
Similarly, articles are reviewed by experts (required to have a degree) and those reviewed version are the ones which stick, while you have to go out of your way to see the revised versions.
For the details, and an indictment of all that is wrong with Wikipeida, see: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Why_Citizendium%3F
If nothing else, CZ is the only other wiki with a Wikipedia founder behind it. "Suffice it to say that he learns from his mistakes."
You're omitting the most important detail. Since there are legal prostitutes in Nevada, does that mean there is NO illegal prostitution, or that it is vastly reduced compared to elsewhere? If so, please do provide some evidence to indicate that is the case. If not, then legalizing it doesn't improve matters at all, only serving to expand the industry, and perhaps moving the high-class hookers out the the shadows.
Except that's not true. Sure, copyright laws are getting ridiculous, but a world without copyright would NOT be an open-source world... It would just be one where reverse-engineering, and sharing of someone else's software is legal.
Stallman/FSF/et al. don't want a world without copyright. Stallman created the GPL in response to binary-only software, which wouldn't change. Stallman/FSF/et al. want a world where individuals and companies are COMPELLED to provide source code along with any binaries. Rolling back the restrictions on copyright wouldn't do that, nor would eliminating copyright entirely.
There is a world of difference between commercial and non-commercial. The porn industry long ago made a pact to ignore non-commercial distribution of their works, and only going after those who would illegally sell it. Freeware software licenses before the GPL got popular were commonly "free for educational and non-commercial use". Fair-use rules make a clear distinction that commercial use is in a different class than educational and non-commercial use. Most people, similarly, don't believe non-profit re-distribution of copyright material should be a prosecutable offense, but only those illegally selling other people's work...
I expect most GPL software authors will largely be only mildly annoyed by non-commercial distribution of their code that doesn't meet license requirements. All lawsuits thus far has been against commercial entities, using GPLed software in in their commercial products, while violating the license. Sure, maybe someone will get miffed when some printer manufacturer uses P2P to quietly distribute a binary-only driver based on Ghostscript or some such, but I wouldn't expect significant outrage. And I certainly wouldn't expect ignoring those cases to weaken the GPL.
1) His presence seems just fine. Besides his starring role in Star Trek and subsequent films, I've seen him in many other films before, and he had no problem playing the lead.
2) Hmm. Always hard to argue with that, whether true or not.
3) When Star Trek: TOS ended, he was just shy of 40, and had appeared in DOZENS of TV shows and films. In short, he took the role on Star Trek BECAUSE he was washed-up, not the other way around. It could only possibly have resuscitated his career, but he blew that.
He may make fun of himself NOW, but it's a good 30 years too late.
Nimoy isn't hated by anyone, and while he's good friends with Shatner, he acknowledges just how pompous he is, writing it off as just his personality. Honestly, how many spoken-word albums does someone have to release before it's brutally obvious to everyone how full of himself he is?
Most of the world gets it. Shatner has a huge ego, and a desire to have it stroked. Some people can brush it off and still get along with the guy (eg. Nimoy), while others (most?) dislike it to varying degrees.
Sure, you can bind them, but you'll have to delivery your license by courier or some such. It's a simple fact that, when you buy a product, you're getting something physical from them, but they don't get anything physical from you.
Netscape got into trouble just because their EULA was BELOW the "download" button on their web page, so users might reasonably not have seen it, and therefore could not be bound to it. Your own contract posted on some random website??? Not a chance in hell it'll be upheld.
The EULA of the game you just installed? No matter how well you tuned it out, it remains a binding contract.
Now, if, on the other hand, you had paid for the software with a sealed envelope that had a contract wrapped around it, THEN you've got a chance it would be binding to them... The only problem being "them" is just some retail store, and not the makers of the game, who you really want to bind.
First-world countries are overwhelmingly facing aging populations. The US is one of the only with a substantially growing population, and that is largely because of massive immigration, rather than high birth rates by Americans.
And let's not forget China's one-child policy.
In short, you have no idea what you are talking about.
You're still just wasting everyone's time. Yes, Linux is more popular than BSD, therefore it gets more code contributions, and money from companies and individuals. The onus is on you to prove your assertion the license has ANYTHING to do with those facts.
You continue to simply ignore all counter-examples, BSD isn't fragmented because of its license. Fressh is nowhere near as popular as OpenSSH. etc. Goodbye.
I don't see how this could really be the case. Every job postive I've ever seen doesn't list a MAXIMUM, but a minimum, and they're generally pretty damn high minimums at that... A BS and 10 years of experience? You can't possibly be a young guy and meet the requirments for 90% of jobs I see listed out there.
It's a prisoner's dilemma, actually.
Clearly, that would be horrible! They'd have financial stability, and all the horrors that come with that. We should model all our industries on street-performers...
There are MANY jobs out there which involve salaried employees dealing with the public. The world has not ended. You may feel better stiffing a lousy waitress, but don't blindly believe that's the most effective method of dealing with human resource issues. I guarantee, more than a few have already discovered that not working for that measly tip is loads easier, and the take-home difference isn't enough to matter. In those cases, they have to be dealt with by traditional methods, anyhow. It might not give the diners the catharsis they crave, but it works.
I don't know about you, but I have employee reviews. Those I've worked with get to chime-in on how well or poorly I've done my job, and directly affect how much I will get paid...
In short, include a gratuity in the up-front price, and just have each customer rank their waitress to determine how much of that she gets. Problem solved. The problem with that? Restaurants don't want to advertise their REAL prices. They'd rather hide as much of the bill as they can. Phone companies are learning from them.
Umm, no. End of story. Software licenses can COMPEL whatever behavior they want, with no ill effects. A license that requires contributing 1% of the money you earn through using the code, back to the project, would codify what you expect, without closing-up the source, or otherwise making it any less useful. Many open source projects (MAME/MESS come to mind) are open source, yet include restrictions on commercial use in their license. If you don't include a similar clause, you have no-one to blame.