A few people have already called you out on your mindless drivel, but I'll respond as well since it was my post you were responding to.
The (L)GPL being shitty in a corporate environment is anything but FUD; anyone who's ever actually looked into it (as in, read the license, talked to lawyers, actually done a cost/benefit analysis) sees that for any product you are selling it's just a bad idea.
But most telling is the fact that you completely ignore my post, going and talking about commercial licenses. I never once mentioned other licenses. You clearly have no actual arguments for why the GPL is valid, you just create a (really bad) strawman defence.
It's a matter of the (L)GPL being a shitty license for corporate use. If they wish to use the code they are under restrictions that can mean big problems if they are even accidentally violated.
Why *wouldn't* they put the time into rewriting it in house? It's pretty easy when you're essentially transcribing source code. then they can freely change it without sharing, without worrying about a lacky somewhere forgetting to host the code, etc. etc.
The GPL is a great hobbyist license but it's a pain in the ass at the corporate level, especially when you aren't really a software firm.
It would depend on what valuation they're using... fake tickets could easily be "worth" that (while in truth benig less valuable than the paper and ink seperately)
But yeah, something about that valuation is very fishy...
Really they should just go straight to the source of the problem and ban brains in lecture halls -- keep the distractions completely out of it.
Profs need to stop being assholes and start realizing that the lecture isn't for their ego it's for the students (eh, well.. that's how it *should* be)
Could be wrong, but I do believe that was exactly the GP's concern... Say you (eventually) use this to construct a building -- having someone able to bath part of the substructure in a chemical and have it suddenly start un-structuring itself would be disastrous.
That said, I'm inclined to say the GP's concern is largely moot, people can already use chemicals to destroy buildings...
Foxconn workers on Apple lines get paid more than other workers on Apple's dime.
For all the bullshit about how awful Apple is, they've done more to try to correct the problem than any other company ever... Whether it's enough is up to the individual but to demonize them is just ignorant.
This was what I was thinking: what's "normal" in this context? The same as your parents? -- in that case every generation ever has developed abnormally
What you're referring to is a self-policing state, which may be required or a truely free country but that's a whole different discussion.
How about when you're the primary suspect in a murder investigation the police have no concrete proof that you did it yet -- that's why they want to get a warrant -- but you don't want them to search your house. No one can prove that you've infringed on the rights of others so clearly having your property searched or being questioned is an afront to freedom. Nevermind that the number of murderers caught and prosecuted would be near zero.
In this case we have a man with very specific bomb plans downloaded a long time ago and stored on media. Very evidently more than mere curiosity. There are active unsolved bombings on the record, this guy is as much a murder suspect as anyone.
In a perfect system I happen to agree, however this is no worse than arresting someone because you believe them to have committed a murder -- something that happens all the time without anyone getting worked up.
If you take your logic further they also shouldn't be able to get warrants or anything else that might presume guilt -- that system just doesn't work.
In fairness (and not to diminish your point -- it is astonishing) there are several things on the rover that have pretty much bit the dust. They keep tweaking things to work around the breaking down hardware. Were the rover your car you'd have replaced a lot of it a long time ago because it's barely hobbling along.
That said, you're quite right it's an phenomenal achievement and the lessons learned will make/have made future missions even more amazing.
Read your own post -- the detective said that. Detectives don't sentence people to jail terms, they just arrest people who are suspected to be a danger to society.
The court on the other hand, decided that he was going to use the information to build a bomb and that is why he's in jail.
The police arrested him based on the possession of this information -- I have no problem with this. They were no more out of line than arresting a murder suspect.
A court then sentenced him based on all available evidence (including the letter making it pretty clear he intended to make use of the information).
It is true that the police did not know he was going to use the information for evil -- the court decided that it was an unacceptable risk.
All of the people saying "they weren't proving an endgame" are absolutely rightabout the police Those quotes are from a detective, not a judge.
Just because it isn't software or hardware doesn't mean it isn't fitting for a nerd-news site. It's appropriately listed under Science and is a very interesting event. A small (seriously, 11 metres) object coming very close to Earth poses an interesting test of our local space awareness. If we can detect these things sooner and more accurately this is exactly the sort of thing that would be a candidate for capture once we have a proper space presence.
First of all "charcoal black" is still going to reflect a good amount of light, and it'll emit lots of IR too.
Secondly, anything big enough to block out any reasonable portion of the sky is going to get noticed just as quickly as a new shiny object. When starts go missing people notice.
As a Canadian I'm interested in what law school you attended. You seem to have concrete answers to issues that are still played out in courts here; whatever school it was clearly either has a time machine or needs to play the lottery more.
legally (current terms of service, not the new one):
By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit...
morally: Google makes no effort to hide the fact that they use your information to sell ads, anyone who finds it objectionable that they continue to do so was a fool to sign up in the first place. They've done nothing wrong by finding further use for the data that you have already willingly given to them (with the full knowledge that they are using to that end).
financially: Google is providing a service that has some worth tied to it (there are many ways you could value it, but all or nearly all would find a non-zero value). You are in exchange providing them the opportunity to use that data in any way they see fit in order to continue the cycle. If you find this thought objectionable you should not be using the services and should instead pay actual money for services elsewhere.
I'm guessing that was a joke, but there are people who seriously believe that to be a valid argument.
If no one is buying content from the shady providers it doesn't matter how many laws they pass they will die by attrition. The only possible exception is if they get a law passed that just invokes a tax against every citizen regardless of what they buy/do. In that event (the government being completely, undeniably corrupt that is) there are things called revolutions that can fix the problem.
You're a moron (this is no surprised based on your first post)
You honestly believe that the only documentation for code is commenting; and that is enough to prove your idiocy... we'll continue anyways.
I never made (most of) the claims you attribute to me; I very clearly stated that conceptual design documentation is a bit of a waste of time (once you already have RFCs and specifications) though not a complete one. I did not anywhere say I didn't have time for it or that I didn't do it. What I did say was that it doesn't reflect the final product; it never does.
Based on your crack-pottery about initial design vs. end result you've clearly never worked anywhere so we can dismiss that point entirely.
Your second point is based solely on the fact that you don't know anything beyond commenting code. commenting is not documentation and if you're putting actual documentation in comments anyone that ever sees your code is going to murder you.
Your third point is in complete contrast to your first two and just cements your status as the village idiot.
Comments are most useful (based on an anecdotal survey of everyone I've ever worked with) for confusing bits of code. If something doesn't make sense at a glance comments are pure gold for resolving it. If you have no idea what any of the code does you shouldn't be expecting comments to enlighten you; that's what documentation is for. Just as you wouldn't expect tooltips to teach you all of the features of a program; that's what documentation is for.
Slashdot Mirror
A few people have already called you out on your mindless drivel, but I'll respond as well since it was my post you were responding to.
The (L)GPL being shitty in a corporate environment is anything but FUD; anyone who's ever actually looked into it (as in, read the license, talked to lawyers, actually done a cost/benefit analysis) sees that for any product you are selling it's just a bad idea.
But most telling is the fact that you completely ignore my post, going and talking about commercial licenses. I never once mentioned other licenses. You clearly have no actual arguments for why the GPL is valid, you just create a (really bad) strawman defence.
It's a matter of the (L)GPL being a shitty license for corporate use. If they wish to use the code they are under restrictions that can mean big problems if they are even accidentally violated.
Why *wouldn't* they put the time into rewriting it in house? It's pretty easy when you're essentially transcribing source code. then they can freely change it without sharing, without worrying about a lacky somewhere forgetting to host the code, etc. etc.
The GPL is a great hobbyist license but it's a pain in the ass at the corporate level, especially when you aren't really a software firm.
It would depend on what valuation they're using... fake tickets could easily be "worth" that (while in truth benig less valuable than the paper and ink seperately)
But yeah, something about that valuation is very fishy...
Really they should just go straight to the source of the problem and ban brains in lecture halls -- keep the distractions completely out of it.
Profs need to stop being assholes and start realizing that the lecture isn't for their ego it's for the students (eh, well.. that's how it *should* be)
Could be wrong, but I do believe that was exactly the GP's concern... Say you (eventually) use this to construct a building -- having someone able to bath part of the substructure in a chemical and have it suddenly start un-structuring itself would be disastrous.
That said, I'm inclined to say the GP's concern is largely moot, people can already use chemicals to destroy buildings...
Incidentally, Apple already did exactly this.
Foxconn workers on Apple lines get paid more than other workers on Apple's dime.
For all the bullshit about how awful Apple is, they've done more to try to correct the problem than any other company ever... Whether it's enough is up to the individual but to demonize them is just ignorant.
This was what I was thinking: what's "normal" in this context? The same as your parents? -- in that case every generation ever has developed abnormally
What you're referring to is a self-policing state, which may be required or a truely free country but that's a whole different discussion.
How about when you're the primary suspect in a murder investigation the police have no concrete proof that you did it yet -- that's why they want to get a warrant -- but you don't want them to search your house. No one can prove that you've infringed on the rights of others so clearly having your property searched or being questioned is an afront to freedom. Nevermind that the number of murderers caught and prosecuted would be near zero.
In this case we have a man with very specific bomb plans downloaded a long time ago and stored on media. Very evidently more than mere curiosity. There are active unsolved bombings on the record, this guy is as much a murder suspect as anyone.
In a perfect system I happen to agree, however this is no worse than arresting someone because you believe them to have committed a murder -- something that happens all the time without anyone getting worked up.
If you take your logic further they also shouldn't be able to get warrants or anything else that might presume guilt -- that system just doesn't work.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with arresting people for having detailed bomb plans and no explaination for why.
In fairness (and not to diminish your point -- it is astonishing) there are several things on the rover that have pretty much bit the dust. They keep tweaking things to work around the breaking down hardware. Were the rover your car you'd have replaced a lot of it a long time ago because it's barely hobbling along.
That said, you're quite right it's an phenomenal achievement and the lessons learned will make/have made future missions even more amazing.
Read your own post -- the detective said that. Detectives don't sentence people to jail terms, they just arrest people who are suspected to be a danger to society.
The court on the other hand, decided that he was going to use the information to build a bomb and that is why he's in jail.
The police arrested him based on the possession of this information -- I have no problem with this. They were no more out of line than arresting a murder suspect.
A court then sentenced him based on all available evidence (including the letter making it pretty clear he intended to make use of the information).
It is true that the police did not know he was going to use the information for evil -- the court decided that it was an unacceptable risk.
All of the people saying "they weren't proving an endgame" are absolutely rightabout the police Those quotes are from a detective, not a judge.
It'd actually be awful -- it might filter the oil out but it'd take all of the gases/salt/etc out of the water too.
The XPrize winning oil cleaner is probably way faster anyways since it doesn't rely on filtration (which is inherently slow)
You might not find it interesting, but I do.
Just because it isn't software or hardware doesn't mean it isn't fitting for a nerd-news site. It's appropriately listed under Science and is a very interesting event. A small (seriously, 11 metres) object coming very close to Earth poses an interesting test of our local space awareness. If we can detect these things sooner and more accurately this is exactly the sort of thing that would be a candidate for capture once we have a proper space presence.
That's so incredibly false it hurts...
First of all "charcoal black" is still going to reflect a good amount of light, and it'll emit lots of IR too.
Secondly, anything big enough to block out any reasonable portion of the sky is going to get noticed just as quickly as a new shiny object. When starts go missing people notice.
Are you intentionally trying to be a moron?
You're arguing that an autonomous car might possibly be able to be taken advantage of if you hacked the fucking satnav
You can do the same thing to a person with some sheet metal, paint and some wood. Which do you think is a bigger vulnerability?
As a Canadian I'm interested in what law school you attended. You seem to have concrete answers to issues that are still played out in courts here; whatever school it was clearly either has a time machine or needs to play the lottery more.
Why shouldn't they be?:
legally (current terms of service, not the new one):
By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit...
morally:
Google makes no effort to hide the fact that they use your information to sell ads, anyone who finds it objectionable that they continue to do so was a fool to sign up in the first place. They've done nothing wrong by finding further use for the data that you have already willingly given to them (with the full knowledge that they are using to that end).
financially:
Google is providing a service that has some worth tied to it (there are many ways you could value it, but all or nearly all would find a non-zero value). You are in exchange providing them the opportunity to use that data in any way they see fit in order to continue the cycle. If you find this thought objectionable you should not be using the services and should instead pay actual money for services elsewhere.
is that people are surprised or even upset about this.
Google is an ad company, nothing more. Of course they're going to grub for every last iota of personal information they can -- it's what they do.
How dumb can you be?
iMovie only works on macs, so they give it away "free" (there are actually update costs)
iBooks 2 only works on ipads, so they give it away free.
You actually tried to take up a contradictory stance using the exact same argument.
I'm guessing that was a joke, but there are people who seriously believe that to be a valid argument.
If no one is buying content from the shady providers it doesn't matter how many laws they pass they will die by attrition. The only possible exception is if they get a law passed that just invokes a tax against every citizen regardless of what they buy/do. In that event (the government being completely, undeniably corrupt that is) there are things called revolutions that can fix the problem.
http://www.terrafugia.com/
(I haven't kept in the loop on it, but they built one that works and I think they even got all the appropriate green lights to actually make them)
I'd post an actual reply, but you've done more to damage your credibility than I ever could.
You're a moron (this is no surprised based on your first post)
You honestly believe that the only documentation for code is commenting; and that is enough to prove your idiocy... we'll continue anyways.
I never made (most of) the claims you attribute to me; I very clearly stated that conceptual design documentation is a bit of a waste of time (once you already have RFCs and specifications) though not a complete one. I did not anywhere say I didn't have time for it or that I didn't do it. What I did say was that it doesn't reflect the final product; it never does.
Based on your crack-pottery about initial design vs. end result you've clearly never worked anywhere so we can dismiss that point entirely.
Your second point is based solely on the fact that you don't know anything beyond commenting code. commenting is not documentation and if you're putting actual documentation in comments anyone that ever sees your code is going to murder you.
Your third point is in complete contrast to your first two and just cements your status as the village idiot.
Comments are most useful (based on an anecdotal survey of everyone I've ever worked with) for confusing bits of code. If something doesn't make sense at a glance comments are pure gold for resolving it. If you have no idea what any of the code does you shouldn't be expecting comments to enlighten you; that's what documentation is for. Just as you wouldn't expect tooltips to teach you all of the features of a program; that's what documentation is for.