Re:Challenger cause NOT unknown, and admin's fault
on
Latest Columbia News
·
· Score: 1
Yes, you're absolutely right. I've talked to someone that was a NASA engineer at the time, they all recommended against launch. They were just sick about it, as you can imagine.
Re:Challenger cause NOT unknown, and admin's fault
on
Latest Columbia News
·
· Score: 1
And why do you think NASA admin forced the coldest launch in Shuttle history? I'll give you a hint, the State of the Union address was the next day...
No. About 70 million Americans (25 %) are under age 18, and so do not pay income tax; another 15% are "severely" disabled (these came from census.gov). So, that means only 10% of the able-bodied workforce did not file income tax in 2001. Sorry to ruin your outrage.
(Homer finds $20 while looking for a peanut under the couch) Homer: "20 dollars? Oh, I wanted a peanut!" Homer's brain: "With that $20 you can get lots of peanuts" Homer: "Explain." Homer's brain: "Money can be exchanged for goods and services." Homer: "Woo-hoo!"
The last (successful) big project they had was the unmanned Pathfinder mission. It was a great success for them, but was followed by two failures (Mars Global Surveyor and it's sister lander).
There isn't an easy way to do get KDE 3.1 on Redhat. You can either compile the tarballs, wait for redhat packages (official or otherwise), or change to a KDE-firendly distro.
This is the experience that a regular joe would have. This is the battle that we must fight
Why must we fight this "battle"? Who cares if Grandma can use Linux or not? As long as enough geeks are using Linux to keep the platform viable, this geek will be happy, and perfectly content.
the music industry makes big money up to this point so most people are buying from them
Your information's a little outdated. The music industry's sales figures fell by 3% in 2001, and an additional 11% in the first half of 2002 (according to the fine article). So it seems the market is deciding that the record companies are failing. That was sort of the whole point of the article.
You're right. I almost put the word "stealing" in quotes, I guess I should have. What I meant was, the GPL enforces sharing modifications with the community. So "steal" is the wrong word to use; I should have said "declining to share" or something.
Anyway, my only real point was that the GPL is about keeping the code Free, not about author credit.
If they don't give me credit, they've violated the GPL.
You're thinking of the BSD license. With the GPL, it isn't about giving credit. If someone releases a program that contains GPL code, the derived program must also be licensed under the GPL. Otherwise, they are in breach of the original author's copyright, and they cannot legally distribute the program. This is what is meant by "viral" licensing, and it very effectively prevents companies from stealing GPL'd code.
The Saturn V was designed for super-orbital travel (i.e., going to the moon). It would be somewhat wasteful to use it in the Shuttle's role of placing payload into low earth orbit. Kind of like driving an 18-wheeler from the garage to the mailbox to drop off a letter.
That's fine as long as you are not a developer. If you are, then how are you supposed to work on the code on a TCPA-compliant system? As soon as you recompile, you have an unsigned binary.
NWN won Gamespot's Best RPG; Morrowind won Gamespy's Best RPG. Both contests were listed in the/. article.
Re:For those that don't want to click a lot ...
on
Games of the Year
·
· Score: 2
I mean, NWN was supposed to be the be-all-end-all RPG...but SP was just Diablo, and MP is Diablo+chat(+usre made adventures, but user made content is such a butch that you can't give it points for that, really).
I don't know, man. I agree that the official campaign was a bit disappointing, but I think your statement that SP NWN is "just Diablo" is unfair.
What aspects of NWN do you regard as Diablo-like? NWN lets you choose any combination of seven classes (not including subclasses), six races, and two genders of characters to play, along with a customizable look and a large number of voice sets to choose from. In Diablo, you can be a barbarian, a sorceress, a paladin or a ranger. NWN has a large, deep story involving not only battles but non-combat interactions with complex NPCs that evolve as the game moves along. NPCs in Diablo are little more than animated signposts pointing to the next clickfest.
Not to mention that NWN (in addition to the huge official campaign) provides a powerful toolset with which the community has already made almost 2000 new modules. Despite your dismissal, many of these are really good, providing hours of fun multiplayer (or even single-player) gaming. Maybe you just haven't tried the right modules. Check out the top-rated list at nwvault.ign.com; there's some good stuff there.
So "free" is not free here. I'm not free to use [GPL'd code in my proprietary app].
Engage broken record mode:
Again: you are confusing "this is Free" with "this belongs to me". Why do you expect to be able to profit from something that doesn't belong to you? GPL'd code has been gifted by its author(s) to the community, on the condition that the gifted code must remain Free. Not free as in let me do whatever I want and to hell with the rest of you people, but Free as in open and available to the entire community. Why is the definition of Free so hard for you to understand? Are you really so self-centered that you cannot see the importance of protecting gifted code for the good of the community? Your attitude is the perfect illustration for why we need the GPL. Without it, people would just take and take, without giving anything back (see Commons, Tragedy of).
(First of all, the question was on whether it was legally possibile under the GPL to sell Free software. Whether a company can do so profitably is a completely unrelated question.)
If your software doesn't require service and subscription, how [are] you suppose[d] to get a penny of (sic) it?
Hmmm...I don't know...just guessing here, but how about releasing your code under a proprietary license?
I really don't understand this beef with the GPL. Don't like it? Then don't use it! Why fault others who choose not to make money from their code? What does their decision have to do with you? As far as I can see, the complaint is that you can't profit from their code, which is ridiculous.
Can any of you anti-GPL zealots explain this to me, or will we just have to listen to the same oblique, nonsensical attacks over and over?
No one complains that they aren't allowed to sell programs derived from Windows code, because it's so obviously ridiculous: Windows code doesn't belong to you.
With the GPL, you are given the right to see, modify and redistribute the code, as long as you agree not to relicense it. Why does that give you the expectation that the code now somehow belongs to you? GPL'd code doesn't belong to you (unless you wrote it), it belongs to the community. If you don't like it, I hereby invite you to write your own damn code.
You are muddying the discussion by mixing two situations. First you were talking about modifying an existing GPL'd program (Readline). Now, you seem to be talking about a hypothetical program to which you hold the copyright. In the former case, I say again: you should not expect to be able to profit from other people's work, if they choose not to allow it. In the latter case: if you desire to profit from selling your program (and you feel the GPL undermines this), then use a proprietary license. What's the problem?
But if somebody says to me, "Here, this is free," that sets a certain expectation.
You are confusing "this is Free" with "this belongs to you".
the GPL says you can't sell the software. ...
the idea of making money with your software under the GPL is completely out the window
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you're absolutely right. I've talked to someone that was a NASA engineer at the time, they all recommended against launch. They were just sick about it, as you can imagine.
And why do you think NASA admin forced the coldest launch in Shuttle history? I'll give you a hint, the State of the Union address was the next day...
Ah, I see. A bunch. Well, then, shut my mouth.
When 50% of the population pays no income tax
You shouldn't believe everything Rush Limbaugh tells you.
In FY 2001, there were 130 Million "Individual Incom tax returns" filed with the IRS. Wow, this is about half of the U.S. population! Outrageous!!! Those lucky-ducky poor people must not be filing, right???
No. About 70 million Americans (25 %) are under age 18, and so do not pay income tax; another 15% are "severely" disabled (these came from census.gov). So, that means only 10% of the able-bodied workforce did not file income tax in 2001. Sorry to ruin your outrage.
(Homer finds $20 while looking for a peanut under the couch)
:)
Homer: "20 dollars? Oh, I wanted a peanut!"
Homer's brain: "With that $20 you can get lots of peanuts"
Homer: "Explain."
Homer's brain: "Money can be exchanged for goods and services."
Homer: "Woo-hoo!"
Classic.
The Simpsons has definitely slid waaay downhill in the last decade (is the new staff the Family Guy crew perchance?)
I myself have long suspected this...does anyone know?
Be mindful of the Preview button! Save you, it can!
Yeah, it's easy to forget the stunning successes, and focus on the failures, I guess ;)
The last (successful) big project they had was the unmanned Pathfinder mission. It was a great success for them, but was followed by two failures (Mars Global Surveyor and it's sister lander).
By what measure was MGS a failure?!!
No, it's highly unlikely that it was the fuel lines. The Shuttles engines are not even running on re-entry; it's just a glider at that point.
There isn't an easy way to do get KDE 3.1 on Redhat. You can either compile the tarballs, wait for redhat packages (official or otherwise), or change to a KDE-firendly distro.
This is the experience that a regular joe would have. This is the battle that we must fight
Why must we fight this "battle"? Who cares if Grandma can use Linux or not? As long as enough geeks are using Linux to keep the platform viable, this geek will be happy, and perfectly content.
The Penguin cares not for market share.
But it will never get linux out of the hands of geeks and onto the desktops of the grandmas and other nontechnical types of the world.
;)
So what? As long as there enough of us geeks to keep Linux viable (and there are), why do we need to take over the world?
So there needs to be some real consolidation in the OS world.
Oh, the irony!
the music industry makes big money up to this point so most people are buying from them
Your information's a little outdated. The music industry's sales figures fell by 3% in 2001, and an additional 11% in the first half of 2002 (according to the fine article). So it seems the market is deciding that the record companies are failing. That was sort of the whole point of the article.
"My sources say yes".
You're right. I almost put the word "stealing" in quotes, I guess I should have. What I meant was, the GPL enforces sharing modifications with the community. So "steal" is the wrong word to use; I should have said "declining to share" or something.
Anyway, my only real point was that the GPL is about keeping the code Free, not about author credit.
If they don't give me credit, they've violated the GPL.
You're thinking of the BSD license. With the GPL, it isn't about giving credit. If someone releases a program that contains GPL code, the derived program must also be licensed under the GPL. Otherwise, they are in breach of the original author's copyright, and they cannot legally distribute the program. This is what is meant by "viral" licensing, and it very effectively prevents companies from stealing GPL'd code.
The Saturn V was designed for super-orbital travel (i.e., going to the moon). It would be somewhat wasteful to use it in the Shuttle's role of placing payload into low earth orbit. Kind of like driving an 18-wheeler from the garage to the mailbox to drop off a letter.
I think you meant "write once, crawl anywhere"...
That's fine as long as you are not a developer. If you are, then how are you supposed to work on the code on a TCPA-compliant system? As soon as you recompile, you have an unsigned binary.
NWN won Gamespot's Best RPG; Morrowind won Gamespy's Best RPG. Both contests were listed in the /. article.
I mean, NWN was supposed to be the be-all-end-all RPG...but SP was just Diablo, and MP is Diablo+chat(+usre made adventures, but user made content is such a butch that you can't give it points for that, really).
I don't know, man. I agree that the official campaign was a bit disappointing, but I think your statement that SP NWN is "just Diablo" is unfair.
What aspects of NWN do you regard as Diablo-like? NWN lets you choose any combination of seven classes (not including subclasses), six races, and two genders of characters to play, along with a customizable look and a large number of voice sets to choose from. In Diablo, you can be a barbarian, a sorceress, a paladin or a ranger. NWN has a large, deep story involving not only battles but non-combat interactions with complex NPCs that evolve as the game moves along. NPCs in Diablo are little more than animated signposts pointing to the next clickfest.
Not to mention that NWN (in addition to the huge official campaign) provides a powerful toolset with which the community has already made almost 2000 new modules. Despite your dismissal, many of these are really good, providing hours of fun multiplayer (or even single-player) gaming. Maybe you just haven't tried the right modules. Check out the top-rated list at nwvault.ign.com; there's some good stuff there.
So "free" is not free here. I'm not free to use [GPL'd code in my proprietary app].
Engage broken record mode:
Again: you are confusing "this is Free" with "this belongs to me". Why do you expect to be able to profit from something that doesn't belong to you? GPL'd code has been gifted by its author(s) to the community, on the condition that the gifted code must remain Free. Not free as in let me do whatever I want and to hell with the rest of you people, but Free as in open and available to the entire community. Why is the definition of Free so hard for you to understand? Are you really so self-centered that you cannot see the importance of protecting gifted code for the good of the community? Your attitude is the perfect illustration for why we need the GPL. Without it, people would just take and take, without giving anything back (see Commons, Tragedy of).
(First of all, the question was on whether it was legally possibile under the GPL to sell Free software. Whether a company can do so profitably is a completely unrelated question.)
If your software doesn't require service and subscription, how [are] you suppose[d] to get a penny of (sic) it?
Hmmm...I don't know...just guessing here, but how about releasing your code under a proprietary license?
I really don't understand this beef with the GPL. Don't like it? Then don't use it! Why fault others who choose not to make money from their code? What does their decision have to do with you? As far as I can see, the complaint is that you can't profit from their code, which is ridiculous.
Can any of you anti-GPL zealots explain this to me, or will we just have to listen to the same oblique, nonsensical attacks over and over?
No one complains that they aren't allowed to sell programs derived from Windows code, because it's so obviously ridiculous: Windows code doesn't belong to you.
With the GPL, you are given the right to see, modify and redistribute the code, as long as you agree not to relicense it. Why does that give you the expectation that the code now somehow belongs to you? GPL'd code doesn't belong to you (unless you wrote it), it belongs to the community. If you don't like it, I hereby invite you to write your own damn code.
You are muddying the discussion by mixing two situations. First you were talking about modifying an existing GPL'd program (Readline). Now, you seem to be talking about a hypothetical program to which you hold the copyright. In the former case, I say again: you should not expect to be able to profit from other people's work, if they choose not to allow it. In the latter case: if you desire to profit from selling your program (and you feel the GPL undermines this), then use a proprietary license. What's the problem?
...
But if somebody says to me, "Here, this is free," that sets a certain expectation.
You are confusing "this is Free" with "this belongs to you".
the GPL says you can't sell the software.
the idea of making money with your software under the GPL is completely out the window
Provably false.