Tell me about it! I look around at the sausagefest that is IT, and am pretty sure we're already in the situation that you describe. This dudes-only rule is humiliating. Why can't employers see past my schlong? I'm a person, dammit! Hey, look at my face. No, that's my brain, not my face. Up here.
Anthrax already spotted that loophole three decades ago and tried to address it (while also avoiding inconveniencing the sincere) by making the perp commit. It's not a bad solution:
Bands dress like women with hairspray and lace I'd pass an image law, stick it in their face Let's see how long they keep dressing this way Wearing this image twenty four hours a day...
I really wish I'd live long enough to see our species evolve past all the tendency to violence, racism, sexism, bigotry, wilful ignorance, superstitious nonsense, and all the other stupid crap that we, as a species, seem to be infected with
All that baggage is the result of evolution. Quit asking for our species to evolve more, and instead, ask for our minds to become intelligently designed.
(Next up: who is the analyst that we'll sucker into writing the requirements?)
You don't want a [meritocracy]? Go develop your own kernel.
Or fork Linux.;-) In the unlikely event that the CoC is a problem, it's just as subject to change as the code itself is. You can't force anything on anyone. But you can set terms for the conditions under which you associate with others. If someone doesn't like "don't be an asshole" they can form a "we know how to work with assholes" team and each team still has access to everything.
some people might decide to walk away from the project
Well, of course! Geez, one of the reasons I switched to Free software around the turn of the century is that I had never used any proprietary software where that didn't happen. Every decent OS ended up being killed by its copyright holder, leaving users orphaned. The big difference with Free software is that, setbacks or not, Free software isn't automatically (and lawfully) killed when that happens.
The worst thing I can think of that has happened to GPLed code along those lines, is reiserfs. And even then, anyone who'd put in the work could keep it going, though few people felt it was worth the effort. But if you think that's bad, ask any OS/2 or AmigaOS user how that compares to their experience! Shit, ask any Mac OS X 10.4 or Windows XP user.
What did I personally learn? Never again. Free software turned out to be the means of making sure it could never happen again. A whole class of big, heartbreaking, expensive worries disappeared in a puff of obsolete thought.
This is irrelevant to the question of whether contributions can be rescinded
That the code could be rescinded is a question that I wouldn't think anyone would take seriously. It's shocking that RMS bothered to ask a lawyer. If GPLed code could become un-GPLed, nobody would have ever wanted it the first place. It would be the same unmaintainable dead-end-orphan unreliable-futur that you get with proprietary software.
The identity of the troll is relevant because it (ever so slightly) addresses the actual issue of who would say something so bizarre, and what would be their motive for spreading FUD about Free software. Why would someone imply that it's just as untrustworthy (and therefore worthless) as proprietary software?
Wasn't that your first though on hearing the ridiculous thing about rescinding the contribution? (Assuming that you didn't just chuckle and blow off the nonsense, which I suspect most people did. I did, and was surprised to see this story today.)
So what about people who are unable to have children, will they get offended by references to 'parent'?
Near as I can tell, the way these decisions are made, is to follow this complicated algorithm:
1) Is anyone complaining (and through effective channels, where "effective" means that your time is now getting used)?
If yes, then change the term, no matter how ridiculous and meaningless it is. Then the princess will stop complaining and you can get back to work on not-stupid things.
If no, then stubbornly stick to your guns.. as though for some reason you actually gave a fuck about what terms were used. "It will be 'parent' and I will fight to the dea--ooh, I see a way to make this library function 2% faster. Sorry, what were we talking about again?"
And to think, that as an American, I was feeling sorry for myself. Never again. I should have known, no matter how crazy America gets, Europe will always be worse. That doesn't mean I excuse or accept how hard we try to fuck ourselves, but I tell you this: the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence. For all its blemishes.. America, fuck yeah!!! Our First Amendment will always make you people look like backwards cavemen.
To me, that sounds like two hands working together pretty effectively. What's hypocritical? Seriously, I don't get it. Taxes are one of the most proven ways to restrict things, aren't they?
C'mon, the title is so obviously wrong. You don't even have to RTFA; the summary is enough to prove that the person who wrote the title wasn't even trying to be accurate.
the people opposed to basic income (and opposed to any form of social assistance for the poor) are also the same people who are opposed to government-provided birth control.
Lots of people from diverse backgrounds, on both the right and left, see UBI as likely a loss rather than a gain. Some are mystics, some are rational. Some do care about other peoples' birth control, and some don't. Some want the poor to all disappear and die, while others think the poor are people. Some think the government should micromanage the economy, others think free markets do a better job.
If you've already calculated that UBI would actually work, that's great! Go ahead and persuade people of the idea's virtues. Who knows, you might be right. But if you believe that those opposed to UBI have some kind of a magic cross-issue unity, that is totally nuts and is likely to distract people from your UBI arguments. They'll be thinking about how you said something of Trump-class stupidity, having totally forgotten whatever numbers you gave them about UBI.
I can't believe all the rich people posting in this thread, openly bragging about how often they have access to potatoes. Insensitive clods, all of you!!
You didn't own a copy of a movie, CD or book. You owned a piece of plastic or a bundle of paper, and were granted a limited license to the content.
Are there any physical books present in your home? Go find one. Now find your license. I bet you are never able to find it. But you've got the book, and I also bet you're also unable to find any law that prohibits you reading your book without a license.
That license thing is totally made up. Please stop spreading that lie.
Gotta admit, any time the president tries to speak, I miss veneer. Presidents should pretend and put on the appearance of being intelligent and honest. Is that so much to ask?
Remember this issue next time in the debates, everyone. "Mister candidate, suppose you needed to tell a big lie, but it conflicts with the previous week's lie and you don't understand the issue well enough to keep the facts straight anyway. How would you go about deciding what to say?"
You mentioned the Wikipedia article "Web of trust". It acknowledges that getting your key signed for the first time is impractical for many.
And yet people are able to get X.509 certs signed, and we even have things like LetsEncrypt. The evidence suggests getting signatures isn't really all that hard, since 100.0% of the websites that implement HTTPS somehow managed to do it.
So why stop at 1? The only people who come out ahead by us having single point of failure, are the attackers. I think we should move from a pro-attack to a pro-defense strategy, though I guess we should let the people at NSA, FSB, Chinese government and the Mafia weigh in on this before we make any hasty decisions.
I linked to the WoT article to inspire/remind people to think about the robustness of multiple parties attesting to an identity instead of just one, as well as how you decide how much to trust any one given CA. (Which is something nobody does today.)
What if one of the many signatures expires?
What if one of the many certifiers disagrees with the others, due to malice or mistake?
The WoT beats the living shit out of what we're doing today. It degrades gradually and more slowly when faced with simple failures, and it requires conspiracies (instead of someone coercing one single party) to undermine it. Perhaps that's why we don't use it: because it would be more secure, inconveniently too secure when you need to spy on someone. Or perhaps it's because people want to pretend that your confidence is either 0% or 100%, in spite of the fact that nothing ever really works like that.
But that doesn't help you build a robust set of paths through the web of trust to users on the other side of the planet unless several people who attended the same key signing party also routinely travel internationally to key signing parties in other countries
Actually some people do that (an international path through the WoT isn't that uncommon) but you're right that what happens today in PGP's WoT often isn't enough, and it really wouldn't be enough for everyone.
But I wasn't suggesting that the faceless companies that you currently fully trust (hey someone, remind me: why?), have to be left out and replaced by amateurs, as somehow turned out to be the case with PGP. If we implemented the web's PK like PGP did it, then you could still have your cert signed by Verisign and LetsEncrypt and Comodo and your neighbor and your bank and state government and those people you lifted pints with at the conference bar. Sure beats having a single point of failure. Imagine your LetsEncrypt signature expired then. Imagine Comodo fucked up again. Imagine your own government told Verisign to lie or your neighbor was trying to MitM you. Instead of these being disasters where thousands of people have to scramble to minimize downtime, it would be a minor nuisance, detected quickly ("hey, one of these CAs disagrees with all the others..."), and with reputation ramifications.
The catch is that we'd have to start valuing defense more than attack.
And we have known how to fix it since about 1988-1990 (PGP), before HTTPS was even a thing. Our entire CA system was obsolete before we started using it. Hopefully, some day we'll upgrade to 1990 tech and then identities will have multiple parties certifying them.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me about it! I look around at the sausagefest that is IT, and am pretty sure we're already in the situation that you describe. This dudes-only rule is humiliating. Why can't employers see past my schlong? I'm a person, dammit! Hey, look at my face. No, that's my brain, not my face. Up here.
Anthrax already spotted that loophole three decades ago and tried to address it (while also avoiding inconveniencing the sincere) by making the perp commit. It's not a bad solution:
All that baggage is the result of evolution. Quit asking for our species to evolve more, and instead, ask for our minds to become intelligently designed.
(Next up: who is the analyst that we'll sucker into writing the requirements?)
Or fork Linux. ;-) In the unlikely event that the CoC is a problem, it's just as subject to change as the code itself is. You can't force anything on anyone. But you can set terms for the conditions under which you associate with others. If someone doesn't like "don't be an asshole" they can form a "we know how to work with assholes" team and each team still has access to everything.
Well, of course! Geez, one of the reasons I switched to Free software around the turn of the century is that I had never used any proprietary software where that didn't happen. Every decent OS ended up being killed by its copyright holder, leaving users orphaned. The big difference with Free software is that, setbacks or not, Free software isn't automatically (and lawfully) killed when that happens.
The worst thing I can think of that has happened to GPLed code along those lines, is reiserfs. And even then, anyone who'd put in the work could keep it going, though few people felt it was worth the effort. But if you think that's bad, ask any OS/2 or AmigaOS user how that compares to their experience! Shit, ask any Mac OS X 10.4 or Windows XP user.
What did I personally learn? Never again. Free software turned out to be the means of making sure it could never happen again. A whole class of big, heartbreaking, expensive worries disappeared in a puff of obsolete thought.
That the code could be rescinded is a question that I wouldn't think anyone would take seriously. It's shocking that RMS bothered to ask a lawyer. If GPLed code could become un-GPLed, nobody would have ever wanted it the first place. It would be the same unmaintainable dead-end-orphan unreliable-futur that you get with proprietary software.
The identity of the troll is relevant because it (ever so slightly) addresses the actual issue of who would say something so bizarre, and what would be their motive for spreading FUD about Free software. Why would someone imply that it's just as untrustworthy (and therefore worthless) as proprietary software?
Wasn't that your first though on hearing the ridiculous thing about rescinding the contribution? (Assuming that you didn't just chuckle and blow off the nonsense, which I suspect most people did. I did, and was surprised to see this story today.)
Near as I can tell, the way these decisions are made, is to follow this complicated algorithm:
1) Is anyone complaining (and through effective channels, where "effective" means that your time is now getting used)?
If yes, then change the term, no matter how ridiculous and meaningless it is. Then the princess will stop complaining and you can get back to work on not-stupid things.
If no, then stubbornly stick to your guns .. as though for some reason you actually gave a fuck about what terms were used. "It will be 'parent' and I will fight to the dea--ooh, I see a way to make this library function 2% faster. Sorry, what were we talking about again?"
Shit, for that much money, I think I'm even entitled to some umlauts.
I still believe in America. Some day we will have our chocolate-covered nipples. You'll see.
And oh yes, I realize how many ways you can make fun of us. But we [still] have this.
And to think, that as an American, I was feeling sorry for myself. Never again. I should have known, no matter how crazy America gets, Europe will always be worse. That doesn't mean I excuse or accept how hard we try to fuck ourselves, but I tell you this: the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence. For all its blemishes .. America, fuck yeah!!! Our First Amendment will always make you people look like backwards cavemen.
To me, that sounds like two hands working together pretty effectively. What's hypocritical? Seriously, I don't get it. Taxes are one of the most proven ways to restrict things, aren't they?
If it's decades old, then it must not be patented. Why isn't a competitor beating the living shit out of them?
Or to put that another way, maybe this company happens to charge that much, but what does it actually cost a user buy?
Filthy casual!
C'mon, the title is so obviously wrong. You don't even have to RTFA; the summary is enough to prove that the person who wrote the title wasn't even trying to be accurate.
WTF. Google recommended people use this extension?! The article left that out.
If you want someone else to adjudicate what software is good/bad for you, perhaps you might be happier with an iPad or XBox or PlayStation.
Lots of people from diverse backgrounds, on both the right and left, see UBI as likely a loss rather than a gain. Some are mystics, some are rational. Some do care about other peoples' birth control, and some don't. Some want the poor to all disappear and die, while others think the poor are people. Some think the government should micromanage the economy, others think free markets do a better job.
If you've already calculated that UBI would actually work, that's great! Go ahead and persuade people of the idea's virtues. Who knows, you might be right. But if you believe that those opposed to UBI have some kind of a magic cross-issue unity, that is totally nuts and is likely to distract people from your UBI arguments. They'll be thinking about how you said something of Trump-class stupidity, having totally forgotten whatever numbers you gave them about UBI.
This user's browser somehow doesn't load the ads. Score modifier: -0.20.
User's post once mentioned the banned word "kodi." Score modifier: -0.15.
User never posts anything: -0.10.
User only logs in once per week: -0.10.
User's face tagged by at least two other users with scores of 0.60 or higher, and photo is sufficient to be hashed for database: +0.10.
I can't believe all the rich people posting in this thread, openly bragging about how often they have access to potatoes. Insensitive clods, all of you!!
I should have known, the next thing the kids would get into would be vintage episodes of Computer Chronicles.
Are there any physical books present in your home? Go find one. Now find your license. I bet you are never able to find it. But you've got the book, and I also bet you're also unable to find any law that prohibits you reading your book without a license.
That license thing is totally made up. Please stop spreading that lie.
Shit happens.
Gotta admit, any time the president tries to speak, I miss veneer. Presidents should pretend and put on the appearance of being intelligent and honest. Is that so much to ask?
Remember this issue next time in the debates, everyone. "Mister candidate, suppose you needed to tell a big lie, but it conflicts with the previous week's lie and you don't understand the issue well enough to keep the facts straight anyway. How would you go about deciding what to say?"
And yet people are able to get X.509 certs signed, and we even have things like LetsEncrypt. The evidence suggests getting signatures isn't really all that hard, since 100.0% of the websites that implement HTTPS somehow managed to do it.
So why stop at 1? The only people who come out ahead by us having single point of failure, are the attackers. I think we should move from a pro-attack to a pro-defense strategy, though I guess we should let the people at NSA, FSB, Chinese government and the Mafia weigh in on this before we make any hasty decisions.
I linked to the WoT article to inspire/remind people to think about the robustness of multiple parties attesting to an identity instead of just one, as well as how you decide how much to trust any one given CA. (Which is something nobody does today.)
What if one of the many signatures expires?
What if one of the many certifiers disagrees with the others, due to malice or mistake?
The WoT beats the living shit out of what we're doing today. It degrades gradually and more slowly when faced with simple failures, and it requires conspiracies (instead of someone coercing one single party) to undermine it. Perhaps that's why we don't use it: because it would be more secure, inconveniently too secure when you need to spy on someone. Or perhaps it's because people want to pretend that your confidence is either 0% or 100%, in spite of the fact that nothing ever really works like that.
Actually some people do that (an international path through the WoT isn't that uncommon) but you're right that what happens today in PGP's WoT often isn't enough, and it really wouldn't be enough for everyone.
But I wasn't suggesting that the faceless companies that you currently fully trust (hey someone, remind me: why?), have to be left out and replaced by amateurs, as somehow turned out to be the case with PGP. If we implemented the web's PK like PGP did it, then you could still have your cert signed by Verisign and LetsEncrypt and Comodo and your neighbor and your bank and state government and those people you lifted pints with at the conference bar. Sure beats having a single point of failure. Imagine your LetsEncrypt signature expired then. Imagine Comodo fucked up again. Imagine your own government told Verisign to lie or your neighbor was trying to MitM you. Instead of these being disasters where thousands of people have to scramble to minimize downtime, it would be a minor nuisance, detected quickly ("hey, one of these CAs disagrees with all the others..."), and with reputation ramifications.
The catch is that we'd have to start valuing defense more than attack.
And we have known how to fix it since about 1988-1990 (PGP), before HTTPS was even a thing. Our entire CA system was obsolete before we started using it. Hopefully, some day we'll upgrade to 1990 tech and then identities will have multiple parties certifying them.