I can't blame him for wanting to develop South Lake Union either, in fact it makes me happy because I work there and it's good to see the area improving. But where is it written that the city should give him a streetcar? And if they were going to, why not just extend the monorail or light rail?
Probably the same reason he needed "donations" from taxpayers to build a new football stadium. He's also trying to get the city of Seattle to build him a new streetcar to the neighborhood he owns.
I've gotten by with hauling things in small cars for quite a while. Once I transported a recliner and a large air compressor in the back of my '77 diesel Rabbit, which got around 45 mpg. Now I own a '91 VW Fox, which I've equipped with a roof rack, and I've hauled my kayak, plywood, drywall, and lumber on the top of it without problem. Once in a while I'll borrow my brother's truck for big loads.
Sounds like his mother was in denial. I've seen this from a number of people I know (and people I don't know) whose family members committed suicide. The best excuse I've heard yet is "he didn't hang himself on purpose, he was just trying to get off sexually". I've heard that in three different places, two of which I knew the person or a member of their family. My wife's cousin OD'd on heroin, and his mother says "well, his liver was shot and he was about to die anyway". The singer Nick Drake OD'd on antidepressants and his parents say it couldn't have been suicide because he'd been upbeat and the doctor never told him the pills could be lethal, he just took too many on accident. And Kurt Cobain couldn't have committed suicide because friends report he'd been in a good mood the last few days of his life, right? Here's a clue: people about to commit suicide frequently show improvements in their moods. That's because they finally have a purpose in life: to off themselves!
What I wonder is, why didn't anyone question Caldera's ownership of the Unix code before they became SCO and started the lawsuits? They even released some early Unix code under a BSD type license and Novell never said a thing to my knowledge. Although I think SCO's claims are baseless, I really don't think Novell's copyright claims are valid either. Before the lawsuits started, it was pretty much common knowledge that Caldera/SCO owned the copyrights to Unix.
She is on her way to being as annoying as ESR. Her inline comments on legal documents echoes ESR's "Halloween Document" commenting. It's like, thanks for providing this service, but I'd kind of like to make up my own mind about what this means, you know?
I hope I'm not the only one who's sick of hearing the word "specificity" being used everywhere now. It's gotten as bad as "synergy" and all forms thereof, or "serendipity" and all its loathsome forms.
From the article: ...YAST's current license carries prohibitions on distribution: "Distribution of the YAST program, its sources...and the works derived thereof for a charge require the prior written consent of SuSE Linux," according to the license.
Bruce Perens, who helped write the Open Source Definition and is an open-source advocate, described the permission provision as "pernicious" in an interview.
Let's see here...
$ dict pernicious
Pernicious \Per*ni"cious\, a. [L. perniciosus, from pernicies destruction, from pernecare to kill or slay outright; per + necare to kill, slay: cf. F. pernicieux. Cf. {Nuisance}, {Necromancy}.] Having the quality of injuring or killing; destructive; very mischievous; baleful; malicious; wicked.
For god's sake, will someone fire Bruce Perens and the other whacked out leaders of the Open Source/Free Software movement? I love open source software, but can we please have some reasonable people speaking for it, once?
Maybe I misunderstood the term "managed code", but I thought it meant the code was running on a virtual machine. For example, Microsoft now has what they call managed C++ which runs on the.NET vm.
It seems reasonable to use gcj, but it doesn't really fit the need for a high level, managed environment. If the code isn't running on the vm, it's not managed, right?
Nah, I've been around schizophrenics, and while there are different levels of severity, I don't think even a mild schizophrenic would be as coherent as Darl, and I mean that without sarcasm. His FUD, while hard to believe sometimes, is too calculated to be the rants of a schizophrenic. He could have some other disorder like manic depression, and I do agree he is antisocial.
There's been a lot of speculation that MS would go towards their own Linux distro, and that both Windows and Belgian Blue (Longhorn) are dead in the water. To enter a new market, Bill would want a monopoly.
Speculation where? In your head? MS is not going to push Linux anytime soon. Your statement about Windows and Longhorn sounds a lot like what people said about XP four years ago. Besides, MS couldn't get away with buying out SCO.
That's inapplicable. The parent claimed "don't capitalize free unless it's at the beginning of a sentence". That claim is wrong; in English, words are capitalized either when they begin a sentence, or are part of a proper noun. Proper nouns can be created by titles ("North American Free Trade Agreement") or trademarking ("Free Software Foundation"), amoung other ways.
No, it is applicable. I was responding to the person that said the word "Free" was trademarked by Stallman. And it was I who said not to capitalize "free" unless it's at the beginning of a sentence, which is correct. You're right that proper nouns are capitalized, but the word "free" is not a proper noun (well, it could be if someone named their child that, but that isn't the point here). Writing "Free Software Foundation" capitalized is correct, because it is the name of an organization. Saying "Free Software" isn't correct usage, because the "Free" in that phrase isn't a proper noun, it's an adjective. You don't go around writing "Proprietary Software", or "Fast Car", or "Funny Joke", do you? I hope not.
Even if RMS only has a trademark for "Free Software Foundation" and not "Free Software", it is established in the world of letters that the first author to use a new word (whether or not a compound one) defines that meaning for future discussion. Capitalizing "Free Software" is an unambiguous reference to RMS's philosophy.
RMS is not the first person to use the word "free", or even the phrase "free software". Yes, he has added new meanings to it, but that doesn't give him reign to decide forevermore how that word should be used, especially if that usage doesn't even follow the rules of the English language. I just now invented a word called "fumptIK", which means asinine. You can never capitalize the f in fumptIK, even at the beginning of a sentence. Now, let's see if it makes it into the dictionary.
As for "Free Software" being an unambiguous reference to RMS' philosophy, might I ask why so many people are confused by this philosophy if that label is so unambiguous? By now you've probably guessed that I believe it's because of the nonstandard usage of the word "free". What's sad is that RMS' position is not difficult to understand. By muddying the language he has made himself difficult for some people to understand.
That is incorrect. Software they provide is labelled "GNU"
I was speaking hypothetically. If he had trademarked the term "Free", which I doubt he could, then it would only be used capitalized when referring to whatever software that trademark referred to, which would most likely be FFS/GNU software.
software published under a license they approve of is termed "Free".
Do you also claim we shouldn't capitalize Windows or Apple when they're not at the beginning of a sentence?
Of course, unless you happen to be talking about Windows(tm) or Apple(tm).
By capitalizing Free Software, a person uses Stallman's trademarked term
Please provide a link that shows where and when Stallman trademarked the term "Free", because I never heard about it. In any case, if he had, I think the term "Free software" could only apply to software written as a product of the Free Software Foundation, not to any software that fit into RMS' idea of what makes software free.
In the next 30 years software will become the media for all communication. Every piece of news/propaganda and every financial transaction and even each vote will come through software.
Well, since software hasn't yet become the media for all communication because other mediums like paper are still being used, do you likewise think that all paper should be free, and there should be no trade secrets used in the production of paper?
Yeah? Well, is Stallman the only one allowed to have an opinion? When I first discovered Linux, the first thing I thought was "wow, this is cool, someone has created a truly working system that's totally free and open". When I first discovered Stallman, the first thing I thought was, "this man's obviously a genius, but this is software we're talking about here, most people don't really know or care that much about it, and it isn't going to set us free or make us happy or raise our children for us". Honestly, free software (that's right, you don't capitalize free unless it's at the beginning of a sentence) is great, but keep things in perspective, for god's sake. This is *software*, not the foundation of our political system.
I can use the open source software packages like Lego blocks when building solutions for the company. It's all freely available, typically well-documented and very accessible. All of which translates into smaller budgets and a quicker turnaround time than I could achieve using the typical commercial alternatives.
So you're making money off someone else's free labor. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you can get by with it. The point is, this guy thinks it's stupid to give your labor away for free. I think he makes the issue too simplistic, but then, so does RMS. There are times when it makes sense to create free software and there are times when it doesn't.
Well said. Although I don't think your username says much for your choice of films!
I'm not above watching bad films either, and I never said Lord of the Rings was a terrible film. I just won't be heaping endless praises on it because it's very predictable Hollywood stuff.
Oh for god's sake, you can mod me as flamebait if you like, but somebody has to speak up. This movie, the whole trilogy in fact, is not a work of genius. Yes, it took a lot of work to make it, but it is exactly what I would expect a Hollywood style epic to be: over dramatized, over computerized, over acted, over composed. Everything about it fits the standard Hollywood mold. The more money and special effects you throw at it, the greater and more memorable it is, right? Sheesh. It astonishes me that virtually everyone on this site does nothing but rave about these films, on and on, with no other points of view. I'll give my genius awards to Bergman, Tarkovsky, Kubrick, Kurosawa, De Sica, not "PJ".
Well, if Sun open sourced their implementation of Java, that wouldn't automatically make it an open standard. Sun would still control the spec. What I wonder is why doesn't IBM just open source their own implementation, or is it based on Sun's code?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't blame him for wanting to develop South Lake Union either, in fact it makes me happy because I work there and it's good to see the area improving. But where is it written that the city should give him a streetcar? And if they were going to, why not just extend the monorail or light rail?
Probably the same reason he needed "donations" from taxpayers to build a new football stadium. He's also trying to get the city of Seattle to build him a new streetcar to the neighborhood he owns.
I've gotten by with hauling things in small cars for quite a while. Once I transported a recliner and a large air compressor in the back of my '77 diesel Rabbit, which got around 45 mpg. Now I own a '91 VW Fox, which I've equipped with a roof rack, and I've hauled my kayak, plywood, drywall, and lumber on the top of it without problem. Once in a while I'll borrow my brother's truck for big loads.
Hahaha! That's fucking brilliant! I'm sorry I have no mod points.
Sounds like his mother was in denial. I've seen this from a number of people I know (and people I don't know) whose family members committed suicide. The best excuse I've heard yet is "he didn't hang himself on purpose, he was just trying to get off sexually". I've heard that in three different places, two of which I knew the person or a member of their family. My wife's cousin OD'd on heroin, and his mother says "well, his liver was shot and he was about to die anyway". The singer Nick Drake OD'd on antidepressants and his parents say it couldn't have been suicide because he'd been upbeat and the doctor never told him the pills could be lethal, he just took too many on accident. And Kurt Cobain couldn't have committed suicide because friends report he'd been in a good mood the last few days of his life, right? Here's a clue: people about to commit suicide frequently show improvements in their moods. That's because they finally have a purpose in life: to off themselves!
That's not information for casual fans...that's more like information for heavy breathers.
What I wonder is, why didn't anyone question Caldera's ownership of the Unix code before they became SCO and started the lawsuits? They even released some early Unix code under a BSD type license and Novell never said a thing to my knowledge. Although I think SCO's claims are baseless, I really don't think Novell's copyright claims are valid either. Before the lawsuits started, it was pretty much common knowledge that Caldera/SCO owned the copyrights to Unix.
She is on her way to being as annoying as ESR. Her inline comments on legal documents echoes ESR's "Halloween Document" commenting. It's like, thanks for providing this service, but I'd kind of like to make up my own mind about what this means, you know?
I hope I'm not the only one who's sick of hearing the word "specificity" being used everywhere now. It's gotten as bad as "synergy" and all forms thereof, or "serendipity" and all its loathsome forms.
That site is making my head spin. A lot of work went into that.
I've never heard of BWCA. I immediately thought "Black Women's Christian Association". So what is it?
Bruce Perens, who helped write the Open Source Definition and is an open-source advocate, described the permission provision as "pernicious" in an interview.
Let's see here...
$ dict perniciousFor god's sake, will someone fire Bruce Perens and the other whacked out leaders of the Open Source/Free Software movement? I love open source software, but can we please have some reasonable people speaking for it, once?
Now mod me the fuck down, zealots.
Maybe I misunderstood the term "managed code", but I thought it meant the code was running on a virtual machine. For example, Microsoft now has what they call managed C++ which runs on the .NET vm.
It seems reasonable to use gcj, but it doesn't really fit the need for a high level, managed environment. If the code isn't running on the vm, it's not managed, right?
It's called moc, the meta object compiler.
Nah, I've been around schizophrenics, and while there are different levels of severity, I don't think even a mild schizophrenic would be as coherent as Darl, and I mean that without sarcasm. His FUD, while hard to believe sometimes, is too calculated to be the rants of a schizophrenic. He could have some other disorder like manic depression, and I do agree he is antisocial.
Speculation where? In your head? MS is not going to push Linux anytime soon. Your statement about Windows and Longhorn sounds a lot like what people said about XP four years ago. Besides, MS couldn't get away with buying out SCO.
I'm thinking they were testing the maneuverability of the rover, that's why they veered away from a straight line.
No, it is applicable. I was responding to the person that said the word "Free" was trademarked by Stallman. And it was I who said not to capitalize "free" unless it's at the beginning of a sentence, which is correct. You're right that proper nouns are capitalized, but the word "free" is not a proper noun (well, it could be if someone named their child that, but that isn't the point here). Writing "Free Software Foundation" capitalized is correct, because it is the name of an organization. Saying "Free Software" isn't correct usage, because the "Free" in that phrase isn't a proper noun, it's an adjective. You don't go around writing "Proprietary Software", or "Fast Car", or "Funny Joke", do you? I hope not.
Even if RMS only has a trademark for "Free Software Foundation" and not "Free Software", it is established in the world of letters that the first author to use a new word (whether or not a compound one) defines that meaning for future discussion. Capitalizing "Free Software" is an unambiguous reference to RMS's philosophy.
RMS is not the first person to use the word "free", or even the phrase "free software". Yes, he has added new meanings to it, but that doesn't give him reign to decide forevermore how that word should be used, especially if that usage doesn't even follow the rules of the English language. I just now invented a word called "fumptIK", which means asinine. You can never capitalize the f in fumptIK, even at the beginning of a sentence. Now, let's see if it makes it into the dictionary. As for "Free Software" being an unambiguous reference to RMS' philosophy, might I ask why so many people are confused by this philosophy if that label is so unambiguous? By now you've probably guessed that I believe it's because of the nonstandard usage of the word "free". What's sad is that RMS' position is not difficult to understand. By muddying the language he has made himself difficult for some people to understand.
That is incorrect. Software they provide is labelled "GNU"
I was speaking hypothetically. If he had trademarked the term "Free", which I doubt he could, then it would only be used capitalized when referring to whatever software that trademark referred to, which would most likely be FFS/GNU software.
software published under a license they approve of is termed "Free".
Again, that is capitalizing an adjective.
Of course, unless you happen to be talking about Windows(tm) or Apple(tm).
By capitalizing Free Software, a person uses Stallman's trademarked term
Please provide a link that shows where and when Stallman trademarked the term "Free", because I never heard about it. In any case, if he had, I think the term "Free software" could only apply to software written as a product of the Free Software Foundation, not to any software that fit into RMS' idea of what makes software free.
In the next 30 years software will become the media for all communication. Every piece of news/propaganda and every financial transaction and even each vote will come through software.
Well, since software hasn't yet become the media for all communication because other mediums like paper are still being used, do you likewise think that all paper should be free, and there should be no trade secrets used in the production of paper?
Yeah? Well, is Stallman the only one allowed to have an opinion? When I first discovered Linux, the first thing I thought was "wow, this is cool, someone has created a truly working system that's totally free and open". When I first discovered Stallman, the first thing I thought was, "this man's obviously a genius, but this is software we're talking about here, most people don't really know or care that much about it, and it isn't going to set us free or make us happy or raise our children for us". Honestly, free software (that's right, you don't capitalize free unless it's at the beginning of a sentence) is great, but keep things in perspective, for god's sake. This is *software*, not the foundation of our political system.
So you're making money off someone else's free labor. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you can get by with it. The point is, this guy thinks it's stupid to give your labor away for free. I think he makes the issue too simplistic, but then, so does RMS. There are times when it makes sense to create free software and there are times when it doesn't.
I'm not above watching bad films either, and I never said Lord of the Rings was a terrible film. I just won't be heaping endless praises on it because it's very predictable Hollywood stuff.
Oh for god's sake, you can mod me as flamebait if you like, but somebody has to speak up. This movie, the whole trilogy in fact, is not a work of genius. Yes, it took a lot of work to make it, but it is exactly what I would expect a Hollywood style epic to be: over dramatized, over computerized, over acted, over composed. Everything about it fits the standard Hollywood mold. The more money and special effects you throw at it, the greater and more memorable it is, right? Sheesh. It astonishes me that virtually everyone on this site does nothing but rave about these films, on and on, with no other points of view. I'll give my genius awards to Bergman, Tarkovsky, Kubrick, Kurosawa, De Sica, not "PJ".
Well, if Sun open sourced their implementation of Java, that wouldn't automatically make it an open standard. Sun would still control the spec. What I wonder is why doesn't IBM just open source their own implementation, or is it based on Sun's code?