Take the BSD 3-clause license and change the name to something like " developer license", then agree to license your code under said license for $x, where x is a reasonable amount. Basically they are paying for your written acknowledgement that the code is yours to give away and that if there are any copyright problems they know who to blame.
First, I work for the government, and software licensing impinges upon my duties.
There's a lot of FUD out there. There's a lot of restrictions against 'freeware', but people get 'freeware', 'open-source', 'ad-ware', etc... All confused.
There's two reasons for being against 'freeware' - many are distributed as closed-source economically unauditable binaries. This leads to difficulties in gaining code security - the government can go after microsoft if they deliberately put a back door in their software, but some dude who published some freeware MP3 player? The second is maintenance - they don't want to become dependent upon unmaintainable software. It happens anyways, but if you're paying some company money, generally you get a warranty.
Open source? Again - maintenance is an issue, but at least we could hire our own programmers to maintain the software if required. The second is that some licenses require any code that uses the open source modules to be open source as well, and well, that's just not happening with some software. Other software the government is just fine with releasing.
Last is copyright concerns - they don't want copyright lawsuits. So they want an actual license, even if they have to pay for it. Some 'freeware' licenses are only free to individuals - if a business or branch of government wants to use it, they have to pay for it.
As goober pointed out - diesel-electric trains use the electric not so much in a 'hybrid' sense, but more as a transmission.
At those sizes the 97% or so efficient generator/motors are actually more efficient at getting power to the drive wheels than a transmission capable of dealing with the torque would be able to. Then toss the ability keep the generators rotating at the most efficient speed at all times, it's a easy decision.
Other bonuses include less brake wear(they use a resister net on the top of the locomotive), fewer parts to maintain, etc...
If it only uses power when changing the screen why does it need a sleep mode? That seems like a contradiction.
The screen doesn't need any power while it's static. However, the electronics 'listening' for a butten push DO need a trickle of power, so if you're going to take a nap or put it away for a while, you can extend battery life by shutting it down.
I don't think remote control luggage is going to work that well.
'mysteriously starts driving' is going to be enough to ring alarm bells, plus the drivetrain and controls would be hard to impliment, you'd need a second person to actually drive the thing, and you might have a hard time getting good sight lines. It'd be simpler and cheaper to simply have a dude sit down for a bit, then leave his luggage behind. Or engineer a distraction - have the guy be waiting in line, luggage set down, then have another approach a bit and 'Achmed, come quickly'.
Good thing you got modded up - I wish you'd posted this logged in, because it's a good point.
We've gone so far overboard on security that our own security responses often exceed the costs that an actual attack would impose.
One dude, maybe a thousand dollar fine/couple days in the clink, can shut an airport down for much of a day, costing millions. Classic asymetrical warfare.
Heck, the terrorists have already switched from attacking the secure areas to attacking the approach to the secure area. Ever seen the queue to get into the secure airport area? I have a nasty imagination. Just take a suicide bomber, no need for a plane ticket, and have him approach the security area like he's got a ticket and is going to board. Then detonate when in a particularly crowded spot. Heck, he could even have a fairly massive 'carry-on' filled with explosives.
Then again - if I was a terrorist I wouldn't be looking at transportation right now. That's where we're looking. I'd look elsewhere for my targets.
Of course when it does happen, and the rare times the park catches them, the park doesn't go nuts over it. They do a simple benefit analysis and determine that its not worth the additional costs. Who cares if one or two people out of thousands cheat the system.
That's actually a core part of security and safety analysis. (paraphrased from training) A: Determine the risk B: Determine the probability of the risk C: Determine the damage/loss if the risk becomes a reality D: Determine a fix action E: Determine the cost of the fix action F: Determine the probability of the fix action working
If B*C IF they properly value human life.
IE 'settling the wrongful death suits will cost us an estimated $100k each for the anticipated deaths' is wrong. 'It'd cost us OVER $10M per life saved' is far far better. Honestly enough, I'd place the 'generic' value of a human life somewhere between $1M-$10M USD at this time.
Given the typos, I'd guess that they scanned and OCRed it. And trust me, nobody proof read it. Who would type and proof read that thing???
Might of been different versions?
I didn't read or see any version. I read about it on an article here a while back, and they had information on a group that did it - they split it up by chapters for the typists or something.
Still, if the wait is even a day, you're not going to get a lot of additional sales from the pirates if the illegal version is available less than 24 hours after the legal release.
I've had actual classes on typing. I'm out of practice, but I'm willing to bet that I could get back up to 30 wpm in short order if I tried.
Some authors have even gone as far as to shrug off e-book technology altogether. J.K Rowling has thus far refused to make any of her Harry Potter books available digitally because of piracy fears and a desire to see readers experience her books in print.
While it's Rowling's option to try to force her readers to 'experience her books in print', I'd point out that our population is aging - the ability to 'create' a virtual large print edition is going to become more and more important. Not to mention the space savings from not having loads of books, the resource savings of not printing them, all that.
I'll also state that her 'piracy fears' are actually encouraging piracy. Most pirated e-books aren't cracked digital editions, they're scanned/typed in version from the dead-paper edition. Thus, if you want Rowling's works in an electronic version, you're stuck pirating, much like how movies/music weren't legally available purely electronically.
If I remember right, book before last was available within about a half hour of being released in stores - an enterprising group of people typed and proof-read the book into an e-book version in that short of a period of time. So NOT offering a electronic version did jack to prevent an illegal copy being available.
I've switched mostly to e-books - a lot of them from Baen. They're doing fine with unrestricted e-books and outright giving a number of them away.
Guess what Rowling - not releasing your ebooks hasn't caused me to buy paper copies, it's make me simply not read your works. I've stopped pirating as I aged.
I have to agree with you. An hour? There's a lot of flights where I'd never have a chance to visit the lavatory.
And we wonder why the airlines are having so much trouble making a profit today?
I've been avoiding flying because of the TSA for ages now. First you have to go through massive amounts of trouble at the checkpoints, worry about your luggage, now you're even going to be interfered with on the flight itself.
My fear that eventually travelers will all have to fly wearing issued paper-tissue gowns and be sedated during the flight approaches...
U-hauls are in long-term fleet use, rented by people who are diesel-illiterate and beat the shit out of them. A diesel injector pump can cost as much as a big block engine. Idiot customer is much less likely to hurt the big block, especially the common 6.0/366.
I'd disagree on the fragility, but on the other hand the gasoline engine IS cheaper, and it's not like U-Haul is paying the fuel costs. As a customer, I'd try for a diesel in order to save money on fuel, but for the very occasional use, I guess I'd just have to cope.
I wouldn't be surprised if U-Haul tried to use diesel engines in its trucks at some point, and experienced such a high failure rate from renter errors that they gave up on the idea.
I thought the filling hoses were incompatible, but possible, I guess. On the other hand, you also get people like me who sees that big vehicle and tries to stick diesel in it...;)
Then again, I actually read the fuel cap, and for such a large rental, you'd think that the rental agent could let them know it's diesel.
That happens with anything nowadays that they discontinue, or people THINK will be discontinued. See, there's this idea that's been driven into people's heads over the past 20 years or so that getting your hands on anything that's scarce will be an easy road to riches. The old "money for nothing" ploy.
Well, there's 'rare' and then there's 'in demand'.
The big block v-8 filled a niche. It's not a niche that can't be replaced, but it's a niche.
Ordering a '2 year supply' isn't stockpiling in a hope to get rich, it's having a sufficient supply that you can still manufacture your product, whether it be an emergency water pump system, U-Haul truck*, mobile home, generator, boat engine, or what not until you've re-engineered your product to take a different engine. Or some Chinese company licenses the design and starts production...
If it's even remotely rare, some greedy, bottom feeding, unethical scumbag will buy the last of them, then put them back on sale at an inflated price, demanding huge profits while adding zero value.
Uh.... Sure that 'scumbag' is adding value: He's adding the value of it being available. He has to pay for warehousing them in good condition, sales staff to sell them, advertising to let companies know the product is still available(in limited quantities). He has to take the risk that it'll never sell, and in many states, play a percentage tax on their retail value every year. It's expensive to keep stock around.
Not that some of what you mention doesn't happen, but from what I'm reading, GM fulfilled all orders in before a certain date, so the 'scum-suckers' at least can't rape the customers who planned ahead and stockpiled some of their own...
The problem with this is that ethanol isn't particularly green at this point and most engines have been tuned for regular gasoline, not high-octane ethanol blends. So they aren't particularly efficient at running pure ethanol, further reducing any green gains.
I don't know what technical marvels they implemented to get 168mpg.
From my understanding, it'd be set up like the huge ship based two stroke diesels. You utilize a turbocharger and direct injection into the cylinder. That way you're not blowing gas/oil out with the exhaust. You can control precisely how much and when fuel is introduced into the chambers.
Then you end up with an engine that's almost half the weight for the power. Cooling needs can even be reduced because you can use the air during the flush phase to help cool the engine.
Nothing wrong with that, but I don't want any pictures out there. How I vote is my business.
Oh, I agree. For example, I own guns. A year ago I had a medical questionnaire that asked whether I owned any. This was an online questionnaire that did not let me chose 'I prefer not to answer'.
Now, I'm mostly an honest person, and gotten more so as I've aged. So I don't like lying. But I also don't want the fact that I have them in my medical records, to be treated as a health risk.
Seriously. I threw a fit when they placed the mere ownership of a gun as a indicator of suicide risk equal to telling somebody you're thinking about doing it, giving away your stuff, putting your affairs in order, etc...
Mind you, I'm in North Dakota. Well over 50% of households have firearms, the first day of deer season might as well be a holiday, etc...
Substitute whatever else you like. Them finding out you skateboard, skydive, rock climb, play soccer instead of football, smoke, etc... All could be used in discriminating for/against somebody for something that shouldn't enter the workplace, or most other places, for that matter.
Being absurdly rich and having sex with lots of women isn't a crime.
No, but adultery is. At least in some states. Not normally prosecuted though.
Given the image that Tiger had been cultivating, the affairs were a rather large set of skeletons, and resulted in an assault on him when they were found out.
I didn't restrict the skeleton comment to just legal repercussions for a number of reasons. Some skeletons, for example, might get you killed by the mob. Doesn't mean it's not a skeleton.
Respect for the privacy of the individual is one of the most vitally important elements of our government. If you don't have that respect, you don't have anything. Period.
but if you've got skeletons in your closet, keep them there.
My skeletons are very minor. I also don't make more with my attitudes. A guy having an affair isn't making a skeleton if he's open about it and doesn't care that anybody knows. That same guy can be making a HUGE skeleton if he's trying to hide it.
The problem I have with this sort of stuff is look at Tiger Woods, even President Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc...
People without skeletons in their closet are extremely rare. Nearly everybody has something to hide, if not from criminal matters, from embarrassing personal matters.
Then again, yeah, if you lack even those personal embarrassments, you really do have nothing to fear. But then, most people who make these statements DO have skeletons in their personal closets, and sometimes their own laws catch them.
How can such a thing exist on a commodity good that has already been released to the public
For that matter, in my organization, something can be not releasable to the public, but it can lose that status if somebody independently obtains that information. We don't release it, but if somebody else does, it loses it's status as secret.
Doesn't mean that we won't simply say nothing - especially on the internet people say many things, and we don't want to collaberate the information.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it. You seem to be mixing up tons of unrelated stuff.
[i]I[/i] understand the differences between different licenses. That doesn't mean that the contracting department or that the leadership does.
That's why I said there's a lot of FUD out there. People just don't get the differences between the licenses.
Take the BSD 3-clause license and change the name to something like " developer license", then agree to license your code under said license for $x, where x is a reasonable amount. Basically they are paying for your written acknowledgement that the code is yours to give away and that if there are any copyright problems they know who to blame.
First, I work for the government, and software licensing impinges upon my duties.
There's a lot of FUD out there. There's a lot of restrictions against 'freeware', but people get 'freeware', 'open-source', 'ad-ware', etc... All confused.
There's two reasons for being against 'freeware' - many are distributed as closed-source economically unauditable binaries. This leads to difficulties in gaining code security - the government can go after microsoft if they deliberately put a back door in their software, but some dude who published some freeware MP3 player? The second is maintenance - they don't want to become dependent upon unmaintainable software. It happens anyways, but if you're paying some company money, generally you get a warranty.
Open source? Again - maintenance is an issue, but at least we could hire our own programmers to maintain the software if required. The second is that some licenses require any code that uses the open source modules to be open source as well, and well, that's just not happening with some software. Other software the government is just fine with releasing.
Last is copyright concerns - they don't want copyright lawsuits. So they want an actual license, even if they have to pay for it. Some 'freeware' licenses are only free to individuals - if a business or branch of government wants to use it, they have to pay for it.
I'm planning on a solar charger, personally.
As goober pointed out - diesel-electric trains use the electric not so much in a 'hybrid' sense, but more as a transmission.
At those sizes the 97% or so efficient generator/motors are actually more efficient at getting power to the drive wheels than a transmission capable of dealing with the torque would be able to. Then toss the ability keep the generators rotating at the most efficient speed at all times, it's a easy decision.
Other bonuses include less brake wear(they use a resister net on the top of the locomotive), fewer parts to maintain, etc...
I once went on a 6 month deployment - my car needed jumping, but the fuel was fine, without any stabilizer.
I now put stabilizer in for my smaller motors and such, but cars are generally a little less touchy about the fuel.
If/when I deploy again I'll try to toss some stabilizer in there.
That's because they ARE noisy, smelly and polluting..
Says somebody whose last experience with a diesel car was probably back in the '80s. Or at least with that vintage of a vehicle.
I've driven turbodiesels where the first indication it was a diesel was when I went to fill it up and the cap said 'diesel'.
If it only uses power when changing the screen why does it need a sleep mode? That seems like a contradiction.
The screen doesn't need any power while it's static. However, the electronics 'listening' for a butten push DO need a trickle of power, so if you're going to take a nap or put it away for a while, you can extend battery life by shutting it down.
I don't think remote control luggage is going to work that well.
'mysteriously starts driving' is going to be enough to ring alarm bells, plus the drivetrain and controls would be hard to impliment, you'd need a second person to actually drive the thing, and you might have a hard time getting good sight lines. It'd be simpler and cheaper to simply have a dude sit down for a bit, then leave his luggage behind. Or engineer a distraction - have the guy be waiting in line, luggage set down, then have another approach a bit and 'Achmed, come quickly'.
Formula screwed up on submission:
B*C < E*F then you don't do it. This assumes that the damage/loss properly values human life, if that's part of the risk - in the millions per life.
Good thing you got modded up - I wish you'd posted this logged in, because it's a good point.
We've gone so far overboard on security that our own security responses often exceed the costs that an actual attack would impose.
One dude, maybe a thousand dollar fine/couple days in the clink, can shut an airport down for much of a day, costing millions. Classic asymetrical warfare.
Heck, the terrorists have already switched from attacking the secure areas to attacking the approach to the secure area. Ever seen the queue to get into the secure airport area? I have a nasty imagination. Just take a suicide bomber, no need for a plane ticket, and have him approach the security area like he's got a ticket and is going to board. Then detonate when in a particularly crowded spot. Heck, he could even have a fairly massive 'carry-on' filled with explosives.
Then again - if I was a terrorist I wouldn't be looking at transportation right now. That's where we're looking. I'd look elsewhere for my targets.
Of course when it does happen, and the rare times the park catches them, the park doesn't go nuts over it. They do a simple benefit analysis and determine that its not worth the additional costs. Who cares if one or two people out of thousands cheat the system.
That's actually a core part of security and safety analysis.
(paraphrased from training)
A: Determine the risk
B: Determine the probability of the risk
C: Determine the damage/loss if the risk becomes a reality
D: Determine a fix action
E: Determine the cost of the fix action
F: Determine the probability of the fix action working
If B*C IF they properly value human life.
IE 'settling the wrongful death suits will cost us an estimated $100k each for the anticipated deaths' is wrong. 'It'd cost us OVER $10M per life saved' is far far better. Honestly enough, I'd place the 'generic' value of a human life somewhere between $1M-$10M USD at this time.
Given the typos, I'd guess that they scanned and OCRed it. And trust me, nobody proof read it. Who would type and proof read that thing???
Might of been different versions?
I didn't read or see any version. I read about it on an article here a while back, and they had information on a group that did it - they split it up by chapters for the typists or something.
Still, if the wait is even a day, you're not going to get a lot of additional sales from the pirates if the illegal version is available less than 24 hours after the legal release.
I've had actual classes on typing. I'm out of practice, but I'm willing to bet that I could get back up to 30 wpm in short order if I tried.
Some authors have even gone as far as to shrug off e-book technology altogether. J.K Rowling has thus far refused to make any of her Harry Potter books available digitally because of piracy fears and a desire to see readers experience her books in print.
While it's Rowling's option to try to force her readers to 'experience her books in print', I'd point out that our population is aging - the ability to 'create' a virtual large print edition is going to become more and more important. Not to mention the space savings from not having loads of books, the resource savings of not printing them, all that.
I'll also state that her 'piracy fears' are actually encouraging piracy. Most pirated e-books aren't cracked digital editions, they're scanned/typed in version from the dead-paper edition. Thus, if you want Rowling's works in an electronic version, you're stuck pirating, much like how movies/music weren't legally available purely electronically.
If I remember right, book before last was available within about a half hour of being released in stores - an enterprising group of people typed and proof-read the book into an e-book version in that short of a period of time. So NOT offering a electronic version did jack to prevent an illegal copy being available.
I've switched mostly to e-books - a lot of them from Baen. They're doing fine with unrestricted e-books and outright giving a number of them away.
Guess what Rowling - not releasing your ebooks hasn't caused me to buy paper copies, it's make me simply not read your works. I've stopped pirating as I aged.
I have to agree with you. An hour? There's a lot of flights where I'd never have a chance to visit the lavatory.
And we wonder why the airlines are having so much trouble making a profit today?
I've been avoiding flying because of the TSA for ages now. First you have to go through massive amounts of trouble at the checkpoints, worry about your luggage, now you're even going to be interfered with on the flight itself.
My fear that eventually travelers will all have to fly wearing issued paper-tissue gowns and be sedated during the flight approaches...
U-hauls are in long-term fleet use, rented by people who are diesel-illiterate and beat the shit out of them. A diesel injector pump can cost as much as a big block engine. Idiot customer is much less likely to hurt the big block, especially the common 6.0/366.
I'd disagree on the fragility, but on the other hand the gasoline engine IS cheaper, and it's not like U-Haul is paying the fuel costs. As a customer, I'd try for a diesel in order to save money on fuel, but for the very occasional use, I guess I'd just have to cope.
I wouldn't be surprised if U-Haul tried to use diesel engines in its trucks at some point, and experienced such a high failure rate from renter errors that they gave up on the idea.
I thought the filling hoses were incompatible, but possible, I guess. On the other hand, you also get people like me who sees that big vehicle and tries to stick diesel in it... ;)
Then again, I actually read the fuel cap, and for such a large rental, you'd think that the rental agent could let them know it's diesel.
That happens with anything nowadays that they discontinue, or people THINK will be discontinued. See, there's this idea that's been driven into people's heads over the past 20 years or so that getting your hands on anything that's scarce will be an easy road to riches. The old "money for nothing" ploy.
Well, there's 'rare' and then there's 'in demand'.
The big block v-8 filled a niche. It's not a niche that can't be replaced, but it's a niche.
Ordering a '2 year supply' isn't stockpiling in a hope to get rich, it's having a sufficient supply that you can still manufacture your product, whether it be an emergency water pump system, U-Haul truck*, mobile home, generator, boat engine, or what not until you've re-engineered your product to take a different engine. Or some Chinese company licenses the design and starts production...
If it's even remotely rare, some greedy, bottom feeding, unethical scumbag will buy the last of them, then put them back on sale at an inflated price, demanding huge profits while adding zero value.
Uh.... Sure that 'scumbag' is adding value: He's adding the value of it being available. He has to pay for warehousing them in good condition, sales staff to sell them, advertising to let companies know the product is still available(in limited quantities). He has to take the risk that it'll never sell, and in many states, play a percentage tax on their retail value every year. It's expensive to keep stock around.
Not that some of what you mention doesn't happen, but from what I'm reading, GM fulfilled all orders in before a certain date, so the 'scum-suckers' at least can't rape the customers who planned ahead and stockpiled some of their own...
*Still surprised these aren't diesel.
The problem with this is that ethanol isn't particularly green at this point and most engines have been tuned for regular gasoline, not high-octane ethanol blends. So they aren't particularly efficient at running pure ethanol, further reducing any green gains.
I don't know what technical marvels they implemented to get 168mpg.
From my understanding, it'd be set up like the huge ship based two stroke diesels. You utilize a turbocharger and direct injection into the cylinder. That way you're not blowing gas/oil out with the exhaust. You can control precisely how much and when fuel is introduced into the chambers.
Then you end up with an engine that's almost half the weight for the power. Cooling needs can even be reduced because you can use the air during the flush phase to help cool the engine.
Nothing wrong with that, but I don't want any pictures out there. How I vote is my business.
Oh, I agree. For example, I own guns. A year ago I had a medical questionnaire that asked whether I owned any. This was an online questionnaire that did not let me chose 'I prefer not to answer'.
Now, I'm mostly an honest person, and gotten more so as I've aged. So I don't like lying. But I also don't want the fact that I have them in my medical records, to be treated as a health risk.
Seriously. I threw a fit when they placed the mere ownership of a gun as a indicator of suicide risk equal to telling somebody you're thinking about doing it, giving away your stuff, putting your affairs in order, etc...
Mind you, I'm in North Dakota. Well over 50% of households have firearms, the first day of deer season might as well be a holiday, etc...
Substitute whatever else you like. Them finding out you skateboard, skydive, rock climb, play soccer instead of football, smoke, etc... All could be used in discriminating for/against somebody for something that shouldn't enter the workplace, or most other places, for that matter.
Anyways, I digress, so I'll end this post.
Being absurdly rich and having sex with lots of women isn't a crime.
No, but adultery is. At least in some states. Not normally prosecuted though.
Given the image that Tiger had been cultivating, the affairs were a rather large set of skeletons, and resulted in an assault on him when they were found out.
I didn't restrict the skeleton comment to just legal repercussions for a number of reasons. Some skeletons, for example, might get you killed by the mob. Doesn't mean it's not a skeleton.
Respect for the privacy of the individual is one of the most vitally important elements of our government. If you don't have that respect, you don't have anything. Period.
Agreed
but if you've got skeletons in your closet, keep them there.
My skeletons are very minor. I also don't make more with my attitudes. A guy having an affair isn't making a skeleton if he's open about it and doesn't care that anybody knows. That same guy can be making a HUGE skeleton if he's trying to hide it.
The problem I have with this sort of stuff is look at Tiger Woods, even President Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc...
People without skeletons in their closet are extremely rare. Nearly everybody has something to hide, if not from criminal matters, from embarrassing personal matters.
Then again, yeah, if you lack even those personal embarrassments, you really do have nothing to fear. But then, most people who make these statements DO have skeletons in their personal closets, and sometimes their own laws catch them.
How can such a thing exist on a commodity good that has already been released to the public
For that matter, in my organization, something can be not releasable to the public, but it can lose that status if somebody independently obtains that information. We don't release it, but if somebody else does, it loses it's status as secret.
Doesn't mean that we won't simply say nothing - especially on the internet people say many things, and we don't want to collaberate the information.
Not using dihydrogen monoxide! Why I bet they use so much of it they have it piped in! :)