I've seen so many developers just slap the GPL on their code because it's perceived as the "default" choice. When asked why they chose to use the GPL, they can't even explain its basic provisions. When told how it works, many of those same developers will say "oh, that's not really my intent." Sadly, because of the original "default" perception, a ton of code gets licensed this way.
I aggressively support the right to license something any way creators see fit, and happen to license my most of my stuff under the BSD and Artistic licenses. That said, people really need to understand what different licenses provide before they run off using them. When in any doubt whatsoever regarding any of it, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to pay for an hour of a lawyer's time (if possible).
As far as I know, only nucleosynthesis can actually produce oxygen.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Marcy Carsey, Tom Werner and Caryn Mandabach are all on record as having produced Oxygen. I heard Oprah was also heavily involved.
Sure, most people aren't. However, depending on how much you value the data in question, it's remarkably easy and cost effective these days. You really don't have to go for the full blown bunker approach, either. Waterproof, reinforced enclosures measuring perhaps thirty cubic feet in volume and situated fifteen feet below ground aren't terribly difficult to construct.
While my original post was of course made partly in jest, the balance is quite serious. People need to understand that the safety of their data is their responsibility, and take adequate measures to ensure that safety according to the value of said data.
Make multiple backups of everything you care about, using a mix of different media types. Store your backups in geographically diverse locations, in hardened containers, preferably some of them subterranean. Of course, you're already doing that anyhow, right? Past that, your PC becomes significantly less useful if major communication grids are down/damaged, at least if you like the Internet.
The second one person out of a hundred has a positive outcome on some test drug, all known dangers are totally ignored and everyone wants it. The corp selling the drug starts to suspect there's a problem, but they are making a lot of money so they wait for more conclusive proof. Two years later, everyone's dead of kidney failure.
What if the majority of the people taking the drug would have been dead within three months anyhow? I have two daughters. One is nearly two years old, and the other is six months old. I'm 31. If you have a moment, you might enjoy the first video recording of my daughter Susan's first steps. If I were diagnosed with a terminal illness, and any treatment regimen (or combination of regimens, in close consultation with multiple physicians) gave me even a "somewhat possible" chance of spending a few additional months with my wife and children, I'd take it without question.
I'm also fully prepared to accept the potential consequences of treatments failing completely or worsening my condition in unforeseen ways, including the death of the subject (me). In my mind, the potential benefits may very well be worth the risks, and if/when I expire at least my final contribution to the human race can be a set of experimental data that contributes to the advancement of medical knowledge.
We tend to forget that we are members of a single species, on a single planet, in a single galaxy, in a very large universe. To put it bluntly, I matter to myself and my family. In the grand scheme of things, I don't matter at all. Neither do you. Acceptance of this fact can greatly influence a man's willingness to take part in things larger than himself.
Your inability to properly research something is your problem. Are you attempting to make the claim that the government should assume full responsibility for the welfare of citizens? Are you advocating removal or severe curtailing of personal choice from the equation? Are you the sort of person that likes the idea of public servants dictating your choices from cradle to grave?
This is a matter that should be left between physicians and their patients. Physicians have a responsibility to act in the best interest of their patients, and sometimes this means advocating risky or unproven treatments. That's also how an incredible amount of progress is made in medicine. Patients have a responsibility to learn everything they possibly can about their treatment options, consult additional physicians for further guidance, and make their own decisions based on validation or rejection of recommendations.
The Internet is a fantastic tool for information archival, information retrieval, and global discussion of any topic imaginable. Instead of displacing responsibility for your own health, you could decide to fully utilize the tools at your disposal to connect with thousands of similarly interested parties around the world.
On a final note, I recommend taking a remedial English course at your earliest convenience. Attempting to engage in a discussion on matters like these, while spelling "Google" as "gooogle," spelling "you're" as "youre," and violating commonly accepted composition guidelines with the phrase "acting stupid" doesn't do much to enhance your credibility.
I think you just redirected commentary on patent trolls to look like something from the Jerry Springer show. On second thought, the antics of patent trolls rival anything I've ever seen on Springer, so yeah, never mind.
If I want to visit Nuremberg on business I don't necessarily need a slew of results about Nuremberg laws. If I'm going to China I probably want to see Tianamen square, just as I would want to see Trafalgar square in the UK. One happened to have a massacre in it, but unless that massacre is happening *right now* I care more about directions, parking etc.
This is where the discussion shifts to "your personal needs versus the needs of the majority." Most people will never visit Nuremberg on business. Actually, most people will never visit Nuremberg at all. However, many people are interested in Nuremberg in a historical context. Your personal interest in Nuremberg massively pales in comparison to that of the majority. Why should your needs and interests suddenly gain precedence over those of the majority?
There is, of course, an easy way to deliver relevant results either way. It's called "personalized search," but implementations of such ideas are the target of frequent and in some cases massive outcry from privacy advocates, because accurate personalized data mining requires having a whole bunch of data about you to work with.
Let's look at this another way. Why should this campground in its present day form be considered more relevant/important than the historical facts surrounding the 1978 disaster that happened to occur at the site? Search engines are in the business of providing results weighted by relevancy and importance.
Nobody is being slandered here. History is simply being reported.
If you don't think Hatta is a troll, I don't think you've read much of his posting history. If you don't think he's a troll after reading it, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Eric's contributions have also been about much more than just code. This is something people who largely code for a living tend to forget, which I'm guilty of at times as well.
One should do a little research before making posts that question such things. Had the OP taken the time to do that and put forth reasoned arguments based on said research, it would have been an entirely different story.
Hatta knows exactly who ESR is. In truth, I replied to a troll with a lengthy history of such antics, which was foolish of me.
Have you bothered to have a look at the list of things he's written? Now, please tell us all about the amazing stuff you've contributed to the community.
I'm sure Mr. Raymond is quite aware that Senator Dodd no longer holds public office. It is still appropriate to refer to public officials by the title of the last office they held; this is common among those who have served in the Senate, as state governors, etc.
Furthermore, Senator Dodd is now the CEO of the MPAA, an organization whose positions on electronic rights is quite well known, and cause for substantial concern.
Lastly, I think it's a good idea to continue to refer to Mr. Dodd as Senator Dodd, since he took an oath to represent the people and the constitution of this nation, and should be reminded of that at every opportunity.
That's what I'm saying. When there are more cars on the road, there is less need for additional illumination, because the cars provide a substantial amount of illumination themselves. When there are less cars on the road, there is less illumination.
Thus, the lights should be dimmed when there is more traffic, not less.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen so many developers just slap the GPL on their code because it's perceived as the "default" choice. When asked why they chose to use the GPL, they can't even explain its basic provisions. When told how it works, many of those same developers will say "oh, that's not really my intent." Sadly, because of the original "default" perception, a ton of code gets licensed this way.
I aggressively support the right to license something any way creators see fit, and happen to license my most of my stuff under the BSD and Artistic licenses. That said, people really need to understand what different licenses provide before they run off using them. When in any doubt whatsoever regarding any of it, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to pay for an hour of a lawyer's time (if possible).
With carpet bombing, naturally.
With precision guided munitions, naturally.
As far as I know, only nucleosynthesis can actually produce oxygen.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Marcy Carsey, Tom Werner and Caryn Mandabach are all on record as having produced Oxygen. I heard Oprah was also heavily involved.
After a few too many issues with Ubuntu on sizable server deployments, I ran back to Debian.
Tanks are good at getting rid of cars. I sure hope any occupants get clear in time.
Sure, most people aren't. However, depending on how much you value the data in question, it's remarkably easy and cost effective these days. You really don't have to go for the full blown bunker approach, either. Waterproof, reinforced enclosures measuring perhaps thirty cubic feet in volume and situated fifteen feet below ground aren't terribly difficult to construct.
While my original post was of course made partly in jest, the balance is quite serious. People need to understand that the safety of their data is their responsibility, and take adequate measures to ensure that safety according to the value of said data.
Make multiple backups of everything you care about, using a mix of different media types. Store your backups in geographically diverse locations, in hardened containers, preferably some of them subterranean. Of course, you're already doing that anyhow, right? Past that, your PC becomes significantly less useful if major communication grids are down/damaged, at least if you like the Internet.
Probably not. The folks who are still around from that era would probably be smart enough to have avoided this problem in the first place.
The second one person out of a hundred has a positive outcome on some test drug, all known dangers are totally ignored and everyone wants it. The corp selling the drug starts to suspect there's a problem, but they are making a lot of money so they wait for more conclusive proof. Two years later, everyone's dead of kidney failure.
What if the majority of the people taking the drug would have been dead within three months anyhow? I have two daughters. One is nearly two years old, and the other is six months old. I'm 31. If you have a moment, you might enjoy the first video recording of my daughter Susan's first steps. If I were diagnosed with a terminal illness, and any treatment regimen (or combination of regimens, in close consultation with multiple physicians) gave me even a "somewhat possible" chance of spending a few additional months with my wife and children, I'd take it without question.
I'm also fully prepared to accept the potential consequences of treatments failing completely or worsening my condition in unforeseen ways, including the death of the subject (me). In my mind, the potential benefits may very well be worth the risks, and if/when I expire at least my final contribution to the human race can be a set of experimental data that contributes to the advancement of medical knowledge.
We tend to forget that we are members of a single species, on a single planet, in a single galaxy, in a very large universe. To put it bluntly, I matter to myself and my family. In the grand scheme of things, I don't matter at all. Neither do you. Acceptance of this fact can greatly influence a man's willingness to take part in things larger than himself.
Please reference this for perspective.
Your inability to properly research something is your problem. Are you attempting to make the claim that the government should assume full responsibility for the welfare of citizens? Are you advocating removal or severe curtailing of personal choice from the equation? Are you the sort of person that likes the idea of public servants dictating your choices from cradle to grave?
This is a matter that should be left between physicians and their patients. Physicians have a responsibility to act in the best interest of their patients, and sometimes this means advocating risky or unproven treatments. That's also how an incredible amount of progress is made in medicine. Patients have a responsibility to learn everything they possibly can about their treatment options, consult additional physicians for further guidance, and make their own decisions based on validation or rejection of recommendations.
The Internet is a fantastic tool for information archival, information retrieval, and global discussion of any topic imaginable. Instead of displacing responsibility for your own health, you could decide to fully utilize the tools at your disposal to connect with thousands of similarly interested parties around the world.
On a final note, I recommend taking a remedial English course at your earliest convenience. Attempting to engage in a discussion on matters like these, while spelling "Google" as "gooogle," spelling "you're" as "youre," and violating commonly accepted composition guidelines with the phrase "acting stupid" doesn't do much to enhance your credibility.
HTH.
I think you just redirected commentary on patent trolls to look like something from the Jerry Springer show. On second thought, the antics of patent trolls rival anything I've ever seen on Springer, so yeah, never mind.
That can be taken two ways.
Wait, the previous sentence can be taken two ways. Crap, I think I just put this comment into an endless loop.
If I want to visit Nuremberg on business I don't necessarily need a slew of results about Nuremberg laws. If I'm going to China I probably want to see Tianamen square, just as I would want to see Trafalgar square in the UK. One happened to have a massacre in it, but unless that massacre is happening *right now* I care more about directions, parking etc.
This is where the discussion shifts to "your personal needs versus the needs of the majority." Most people will never visit Nuremberg on business. Actually, most people will never visit Nuremberg at all. However, many people are interested in Nuremberg in a historical context. Your personal interest in Nuremberg massively pales in comparison to that of the majority. Why should your needs and interests suddenly gain precedence over those of the majority?
There is, of course, an easy way to deliver relevant results either way. It's called "personalized search," but implementations of such ideas are the target of frequent and in some cases massive outcry from privacy advocates, because accurate personalized data mining requires having a whole bunch of data about you to work with.
The world can't have it both ways.
Let's look at this another way. Why should this campground in its present day form be considered more relevant/important than the historical facts surrounding the 1978 disaster that happened to occur at the site? Search engines are in the business of providing results weighted by relevancy and importance.
Nobody is being slandered here. History is simply being reported.
Captain Derpy forgot to call before shipping.
If you don't think Hatta is a troll, I don't think you've read much of his posting history. If you don't think he's a troll after reading it, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Eric's contributions have also been about much more than just code. This is something people who largely code for a living tend to forget, which I'm guilty of at times as well.
Apple products are really hot in China.
One should do a little research before making posts that question such things. Had the OP taken the time to do that and put forth reasoned arguments based on said research, it would have been an entirely different story.
Hatta knows exactly who ESR is. In truth, I replied to a troll with a lengthy history of such antics, which was foolish of me.
OSI vs FSF mudwresting match
Evoking images of sweaty, scantily clad nerds grappling with each other in the mud is a terrible thing to do to a man. Please pass the mental bleach.
Have you bothered to have a look at the list of things he's written? Now, please tell us all about the amazing stuff you've contributed to the community.
I thought the beauty of the Internet was that once you're online, nobody knows you're a dog.
I'm sure Mr. Raymond is quite aware that Senator Dodd no longer holds public office. It is still appropriate to refer to public officials by the title of the last office they held; this is common among those who have served in the Senate, as state governors, etc.
Furthermore, Senator Dodd is now the CEO of the MPAA, an organization whose positions on electronic rights is quite well known, and cause for substantial concern.
Lastly, I think it's a good idea to continue to refer to Mr. Dodd as Senator Dodd, since he took an oath to represent the people and the constitution of this nation, and should be reminded of that at every opportunity.
That's what I'm saying. When there are more cars on the road, there is less need for additional illumination, because the cars provide a substantial amount of illumination themselves. When there are less cars on the road, there is less illumination.
Thus, the lights should be dimmed when there is more traffic, not less.
I disagree, and agree with the AC that posted this comment, reproduced here for convenience:
I always felt that lights were less necessary when the highways are illuminated by all of the cars on the road.