But, as someone else stated once, Slashdot is the place where I come for tech related news, if I wanted politics news I would go to BBC/politics, if I wanted entertainment news I would go to eonline or yahoo enterntainment...
Of course, as another poster said once, this is mr. Malda site, and he can post whatever he wants... but of course we can also rant as much as we like =o) Same poster actually... both were me, probably posting anonymously at the time to protect my karma. It's almost necessary if you're going to post the non-Kos view on a slashdot politics article. And actually, on the second quote, I also thanked Rob for letting us complain about how we think these types of stories put slashdot on a bad path.
She handled it publicly and was very conservative with how she handled the public She blamed "the vast right wing conspiracy" instead of her husband. It was all the fault of those evil republicans since her forever philandering husband would never have an affair in the oval office. Why, way back in 1995, Karl Rove set them up by sending an affluent liberal intern to the White House to tempt Bill so that Bush could steal the election in 2000. Not only that, they drugged Bill Clinton and while he was out, had a very good impersonator do an interview as him where he slammed his fist on the podium demanding that "[He] did not have sex with that woman."
Hillary always knew what was going on... she's a very, very shrewd politician and so is her husband. On that vein, she really is a totalitarian marxist, but she knows that it won't play politically in the US so she pretends to be a moderate. She wrote her college thesis about her idol, Saul Alinsky, who was a leftist radical and "the father of grassroots organizing." Her biggest mistake gave her her only major political set back while also revealing her stripes. The 1993-4 Hillary Care plan where the government would control things down to the level of telling you what doctor you were allowed to go to while forcing a state take over of 1/7th of the US economy and introducing whole new levels of taxation on people.
In terms of popularity, she held on to her position as Senator of New York Her choice to run from NY is another example of her political savvy. First of all, lets look at the party enrollment. 5,320,943 Democrats, 3,015,385 Republicans, 2,331,561 unaffiliated. Many of those Republicans are fairly liberal and I'm not sure why they even associate with the party. A Republican candidate needs to garner every Republican vote (bridging the divide and getting the conservatives and liberals to vote for them) as well as all of those unaffiliated votes just to put them in the default position of the Democrat. They need to get some Democratic votes to actually win. Also factor in that the media never asked Hillary the tough questions, they portrayed Lazio as a victimizer for trying to get her to sign a campaign financing pledge, they failed to mention that her infamous "listening tour" was all pre-scripted questions asked by people on an invitation only basis, etc. Basically, Hillary couldn't lose and she deliberately chose NY because there are only a handful of states in the country with that kind of demographic with an open seat... and she needed experience of her own if she was going to further her political ambition.
On a side note, 3,744,244 of those Democratic voters live in NYC, Long Island, Rockland or Westchester Counties. Despite taking up a small fraction of the area of the state (I'd guesstimate single digit percentage), they control the entire state and have no clue that there is a huge body of land north and west of them. Back in the 90s, they held up state budgets to force the state to renew WWII era rent control policies for NYC and they're constantly forcing mandates statewide that are good for NYC but are crippling the rest of our state. As manufacturing and industry have left Buffalo and Rochester, young people are fleeing to find economic opportunity leaving behind a rapidly aging population, an ever increasing number of government employees and every increasing taxes which just fuel the cycle more. But hey, NYC is thriving and the Island is nice, so who cares. I'm also still waiting for Hillary to fulfill her 2000 campaign promise to help bring 200,000 new jobs to upstate NY.
His chest after being in Kuwait and Iraq in the desert heat wearing boy armor for months was still over 50 inches. In a similar vein, I'm 5'6.5" and have a 48" chest. By doing a low carb diet, I can get down to about 200 pounds in a matter of 4-6 weeks and I'll stay there for months despite keeping myself at a 20-25 carb/day limit. Off the diet, I quickly move back up to (and stabilize at) 225 pounds despite eating fairly healthy home cooked meals twice a day as well as walking 5-6 miles per day. All of my body fat is in my stomach, the rest of my body is pretty lean (which is actually very typical for all males on my dad's side of the family, all the males on my mom's side are as small as petite women despite overeating and frankly, many of them being alcoholics.)
I easily have the biggest chest of any male on either side of the family. However, I used to be tiny like the guys on my mom's side until I was about 7. Around the same time, I was diagnosed with chronic asthma and was on a constant regimen of various steroids (regularly until I was 18, sporadically since because my asthma doesn't kick in as often) to try to control it (likely cause is both parents were smokers). I've always wondered whether there was a connection there regarding my sudden change in metabolism, bone growth and the steroids. My chest definitely started growing beyond my peers pre-puberty. There used to be a gap between the gym lockers and the wall and most of the guys could fit back there but not me, even though I was still thinner than them in the gut.
Also factor in that my dad has a hypothyroid condition. My sister was also diagnosed with it after having a baby and seeing an endocrinologist. My dad's mom's mom had goiters the size of baseballs too. There is obviously a genetic connection in the family, though to my knowledge nobody else has been tested for it. It might, however, explain our metabolic problems with stomach weight and could be the reason why I plateau on weight loss despite sticking to my diet.
Fact is, weight isn't simply a matter of calories in. I was eating about 1000 calories a day for three months while continuing to walk 5-6 miles a day and I couldn't drop any more weight. According to various calculators, I require 2200-2500 calories to maintain my weight. Given the difference, I still should have been losing at least 1200 calories (or a third of a pound) per day.
The "or later version" text is in the recommended use section of the GPL license file; It is very much outside of the terms and conditions of the license. You cannot convert GPL2 code to GPL3 code unless the software is specifically licensed under "GPL2 or any later version." It is precisely that reason that the Linux kernel cannot go to the GPL3 even if Linus wanted to without a lot of code having to be replaced.
If you're worried that future versions of the license can cause problems, the best thing to do is to license your code under a specific version (or versions) that you agree with rather than giving a third party that you don't control the power to control the license of your software. If you're so sure of your position, change the license on Linux to GPL3 tomorrow and distribute it... I'm sure several kernel authors will send you some nasty letters threatening to see you in court if you don't immediately cease your actions.
How about being able to filter by author and topic at the same time... ie, I don't want to see any kdawson politics stories but I might want to read a story he posts on a shuttle launch or I might also want to see a story another editor posts in the politics section. That way, people can go -kdawson*poltics or -zonk*games.
Because there is no competition to professional football it allows the NFL... After all, it's not like he can get a job playing for someone else. Vince McMahon attempted to do just that in 2001 with the XFL. It died because people didn't want to watch it. They preferred the already established NFL with the marquee names. Many cities enjoy semi-pro leagues, Canada has the CFL, and for the last 16 years, there was also NFL Europe.
Whether or not a pro-football player can get a job playing football is similar to the whole **AA thing. Complain that their business model (aka job) changed and they were unable to adapt so they're owed something. Thousands of kids go to college on football scholarships hoping to make it pro but never will. What do they do with the rest of their lives? Maybe become an actor, a cop (one of my high school football coaches is a police officer and former member of the Seahawks), a doctor (eye doctor in town is a former nfl player), etc. Most of them go to college for four years, often for free, why feel bad if they didn't use their opportunity to get an education in case things didn't pan out with pro football?
Not just with TM and copy write Pet peeve here... it's copyright (copyrighted)... as in the right to copy something. A copywriter is a person who basically writes up advertising. There's no such thing as copy write or copy written.
What's wrong with being bilingual? If schools start teaching spanish people complain. Why? I mean... "the more you know", right? If instead of speaking one language, you can speak 2? That's cool, opens a lot of possibilities.
There's nothing wrong with being bilingual. The proponents of making the US english only see it as a means of protecting our culture, making sure that you can go anywhere in the US and be able to find help if you need it, etc. I respect people's right to do whatever they want (as long as they aren't hurting someone else) but is it really that bad to expect people who want to emigrate to your country to want to actually be a part of that country? By all means, keep your traditions, food, etc and share them with others, but you need to accept some of the culture you decided to be a part of and one of the most fundamental things that define a culture is its language.
Also factor in that, under the 14th Amendment, if you make government accessible in one alternative language, you have to do it for ALL languages (equal protection clause). I don't remember off the top of my head, but that means making every form, guide, service, etc available in more than 100 languages. I think it's cool if you want to learn the language of the family that lives next door... it's not cool for them to force their language on you. Look at the case in Maryland where a rapist had his case thrown out because they couldn't find a translator for his native language despite him graduating from an US high school which requires fluency in english and his attendence of a state university.
Also, america is also ashamed of the south. You like white christmas and all that crap, and also, that's the way christmas is supposed to be. I wonder if christmas is white in Florida, or even in New Orleans? No, but you don't talk about that. People in those places go barefoot and drive in dirt roads, ewww. They also chase alligators and fish in the mississippi. I mean, if you're fishing it MUST be in some pretty lake or a crystaline river, surrounded by mountains and brown maple leaves in fucking vermont.
There is a large cultural divide between the elitists who live in metropolitan areas in the US and those who live in the south and rural areas. You can see it right here on Slashdot pretty frequently, especially in voting related stories. You see, anyone who doesn't vote the way self-righteous "learned" people do must be idiots. It couldn't be that different people value different things and that living in different areas can give you different perspectives on life. When you're making six figures and only surrounded by similar people, it's easy to look down at anyone who doesn't. Besides, those are the peasants who provide you with things like food so they aren't so much human, they're more like servants to the narcissism of the elite.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? There's a whole world of things, languages, foods, places, and you complain because ILLEGALS ARE TAKING OUR JOBS AND NOT PAYING TAXES! What good are taxes for? I mean, in my country I can at least get FREE medical attention, even AIDS drugs. Even if I don't have a job and don't pay taxes. Hell, even if I'm not a citizen, I can still get all of that. Do you pay your taxes? What do these taxes do anyway? You need to pay for health, food, college. In my country, at least I can CHOOSE. I can pay for health, or use the State health services (sometimes the latter is better). I can go to a private university, but I can also go (and I do) to a state-funded university (and my degree is just as good in any of them). And I can even get free food from the government (and not food stamps, to be treated like scum at the store).
And such is politics. There are those believe that the government should provide everything you'll ever need. Others believe it is up to the individual to achieve those things a
Being upset about illegal aliens is one thing but the blatant racism is not only unnecessary How can we have a discussion about illegal aliens if one side is always going to cry "racism" in an appeal to emotion to try to shut the other side up? If his Walmart has illegal Mexicans in it, then they do. It's a statement of fact, not racism. Why, just last night, I saw four in my local Walmart in NY. How do I know they're illegals? I know the farmer they work for. Every spring they come up and every fall, he drives them back to Mexico. Am I suddenly being racist just because I said there were 4 illegal Mexicans there? I haven't made a judgment in any way. If you claim I made a judgment by calling them illegal aliens and I shouldn't use that word, well, tough. It's what they are and why are you the one who gets to frame the entire terminology of the debate?
That's one of the biggest problems in American politics today... nobody is willing to speak the truth because of constant appeals to emotion, ad hominems, character assassinations when the message is too strong to shoot down, etc.
Republicans want to starve your kids, kill the old people and erode the foundation of our country by eliminating immigration!
Democrats want to steal all your money, hate America and drive us back to the stone age!
Republicans hate minorities!
Democrats hate Christians!
Facts and logic rarely enter any political debate anymore, it's all about who can sling the most mud and frame their opponent into a seemingly evil corner.
Cryptography could prove very useful here -- let each citizen verify that the national tally includes their vote correctly Or let your abusive spouse, domineering parent (don't tell me there aren't any 18 year olds in high school who have a parent telling them how they have to vote if they want their college money or even a 25 year old living in his parents' basement who better vote a certain way or he'll get kicked out), employer, etc verify that you voted the way they told you "or else." The minute you can prove you voted a certain way once you leave the polls, you open yourself up to all kinds of problems. Verification should happen before you leave, preferably while you're still alone in the booth.
In my case, I haven't owned a console since the SNES. The vast majority of my gaming came on the PC with the occasional session at a friend or cousin's house. More than a year ago, I was already ready to buy a Revolution. The name change to Wii did make me mock it even though I wanted one. And that's just it, it got me excited about consoles again. For the last 15 years or so, it's mostly been games that the computer is good at that I've played: FPS, RTS, sports (in particular EA's NHL line) and MMOs. I own almost the full line of Loki games and to this day, still play some of them from time to time.
So what did it for me? What made me so excited that I had to have one? The new controller mechanism and the idea (successfully marketed to me) that they wanted to make games that were fun versus crapped down versions of games I prefer to play on my PC. I was coming off my addiction to EQ and I wanted something I could play on my terms, whether it be for 15 minutes for 2 hours at a time. I'm 30 and a lot of my friends lack the time to sit down to play hardcore style. Almost all my friends were excited about the Wii. My dad had a stroke and can't use his left hand, I was excited that, even though he hasn't played a game since the Atari, the Wii's controller would allow him to play. Sure enough, there are a number of games that work well one handed. Find me another console that lets a one handed player enjoy games.
The buzz about the Wii just felt right... I was excited and my friends who've been out of the console scene for years were excited. My more hardcore friends wanted to pick it up so that they could feel complete/in case any good games came out for it. I felt the PS3 was all hype and was very overpriced. One friend wanted one, two wanted to buy one to scalp when they came out given the production numbers were going to be so low. The 360, I thought, would do ok... I didn't see anything special about it other than the fact it has extremely deep pockets behind it and that it was the cheaper of the two consoles vying for the teenage/college market. So yeah, I predicted Wii, 360, PS3 myself. I really didn't expect the Wii to still be having supply issues this far out though (not that they wouldn't sell but I guess I just expected production rates to exceed demand).
22057 picked Sony to win by the end of this year
13559 picked Microsoft
9183 picked Nintendo
There were obviously a few of us who thought Nintendo was going to win. A fairly significant amount given the inertia Sony already had in the market at that point and the general attitude toward MS here. That's better than 20% of people picking Nintendo, not exactly an insignificant amount.
It depends on if Intel licensed this code "under the GPL version 2" or "under the GPL version 2 or (at your option) any later version". If they included the "any later version" option, then it can be included into the GPLv3 GCC. If not, then your statement is correct. Read the license... it is GPLv2 only at this time. They may release it under GPLv3 as well at a future date but I'm sure the license is under legal review atm and most companies aren't going to release code under a license that they haven't vetted yet.
Which is why I said "copy this code into" rather than "link." As in, you can't copy portions of the code into the gcc compiler tree now that it is GPLv3. You are entirely free to link it, however.
The compilers don't matter... what does matter is that GPL3 code is incompatible with GPL2 code so you cannot copy this code into GPL3 programs you write unless Intel re-licenses it as GPL2/GPL3 code. If they never change the license on it, welcome to the software divide created by the FSF in their zeal to make the GPL3 incompatible with GPL2.
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version",... You can of course get it as GPL 3 If the program specifies a version number AND "any later version."
Try to take my very crappy and unimportant GPLv2 code (note, not GPLv2 or any later version) and relicense it/use it with GPLv3 code and you'll be getting a letter from my lawyer. I dare you to do it to IBM.
Yes, it is more trouble than it would have been if the others' code had stayed GPLv2+. But note that in your example it was the choice of the gzip project contributors to license their future code under GPLv3+. You're blaming the wrong party. The FSF just provided another license option for those who wrote the code. The one quibble I have with that, however, is that everyone has to be diligent about accepting GPL code to their project. GPL3+ cannot use GPL2(only) code. GPL2(only) authors can use GPL2 or GPL2+ code. GPL2+ authors can use GPL2+ code, GPL2 code (as long as they don't combine GPL3/GPL3+ code as well) or GPL3/3+ code (as long as they don't use GPL2 code... and this would also make their program GPL3+ instead of GPL2). If someone somewhere in there combines an incompatible patch, they no longer have the right to distribute that work as is (they can again if they remove the patch). Talk about a minefield... and that is what the FSF deliberately brought us by producing an incompatible GPL3. They're using their position as a core tools/library provider to bludgeon everyone else into ditching the GPL2 for the GPL3 to avoid the very disaster they brought on us. Best part is that they're claiming the moral high ground/that they're our savior for rescuing us from the problem. That's like an arsonist trying to get credit for saving someone from a burning house that they started on fire.
Further, if you accept the FSF definition of "derivative works", ie, that linking constitutes derivation, we have another really fun issue. Lets say my program uses a GPL2+ library and I write my code for that GPL2+ library. However, the author of the library releases the identical library under GPL3+. None of my code changed and I still intend on having it linked only to GPL2+ code. Down the line, a distributor links my application with the GPL3+ version of the library. Said distributor has forfeited his right to distribute my work as well as the work of the library's author. Meanwhile, the library author has grounds to sue both the distributor and I for copyright infringement even though I never intended my work to be linked with GPL3+ code (it just happened to be compatible with my function calls).
Part of the discussion on the gcc mailing list centered around that idea as well... if any gcc released after July 31, 2007 is legally incompatible with GPL2 code, maybe a major version number bump is in order (or in the case of a library, going from libwhatever.so.1 to libwhatever.so.2) to help alleviate those types of issues by making the line more defined.
The GPLv2 existed long before the GPLv3. It is double speak to claim that something invented 16 years prior was invented with the intention to be incompatible with something that would come almost two decades later.
Lets put it this way... "It is not the Patriot Act which is incompatible with the Constitution. The Constitution is the one conflicting with most other foreign legal systems and UN policies. The Patriot Act is in fact less incompatible*."
*Since it is more along the lines of what third world dictators would do and there are more of them than free first world countries.
Because it drives a wedge between GPLv2 and GPLv3 developers. I've written some unimportant GPLv2 stuff in the past. My code with stay GPLv2 because I don't like GPLv3. I don't distribute binaries, just my source, so in no way am I bundling hardware with free software. However, I now have to make sure any code that I use (be it linking or borrowing a couple functions) has to be from a GPLv2/v2+ code base. That might mean having to fork libraries (not all of them are LGPL) and other code rather than getting it from an upstream source or depending on a GPLv2 copy being available because even at the source level, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are legally incompatible.
For argument's sake, lets say I include some code from the gzip package as an internal function used in storing my data files in my program. It turns out that there is a buffer overrun and a patch is posted to fix it. Now, is the patch against GPLv2+ or GPLv3+ code? If 1.3.12 is GPLv2 and 1.3.13 is GPLv3 but they are otherwise identical, how am I to resolve the licensing of the patch? If it is derivative of the GPLv3 code, it makes my copy of 1.3.12 GPLv3+, which, in turn, makes the already existing code in my program legally unusable.
If your answer is to relicense my code to make my headache go away, that is precisely the problem with what the FSF is doing. They're using their existing code base in an attempt to strong arm other authors to release their code, which has happily existed with the FSF code base for 16 years, under a license that they may disagree with. That puts the FSF on the level of a Microsoft or *IAA. What's theirs is theirs and what's mine is theirs.
Out of curiousity, what is the guarantee (or intention)? Is it expected that API won't change again for 2.6, or is it more "we're going to try really hard not to change it unless we have to" kind of thing? Given that Linus usually has a fit when someone breaks userspace (but generally doesn't mind breaking kernelspace, as long as the affected code is patched at the same time), I'd say it's going to be more along the lines of "we're going to try really hard not to change it unless we have to." Even then, it's typical to see an "emulate OSS devices under ALSA?" type option.
I would assume they'd test it on high-risk candidates. Gay men seeking HIV positive partners (saw something, I think it was on HBO, about gay men who are actually trying to infect themselves as some sort of self punishment), spouses who are married to someone with HIV, possibly prostitutes, intravenous drug users, etc. Basically, people who have a reasonable chance of contracting the disease through their every day lives already.
You can't ethically ask those people to try to get infected after receiving the vaccine, but you can analyze the statistics between traditional rates of infection, infection in the vaccine group and infection in the placebo group (which should line up with the traditional rate and I'm assuming they'd still want to do a placebo group as a control, maybe offering them the real vaccine after the trial as part of their compensation).
On a side note, for the cynical amongst us who think pharms won't create a vaccine for a common virus, they did create a vaccine for some forms of HPV that lead to cervical cancer. Also, even if a drug isn't produced in the US, the company will still patent it to prevent competitors from duplicating and selling the product... but that won't stop foreign entities who don't care about US patents from producing it... and if a foreign body produces it and you can't get it in the US, there will be a pretty massive outrage and pressure brought to bring it to market.
Ever change one of the primary header files in a multi-million line program? Not all programmers are just writing a shell script or fleshing out a function or two. The faster you can compile, the sooner you can test and the sooner you can get on with programming. Try building firefox sometime. It took me 50 minutes the other night (albeit on my aging dual athlon 1800MP desktop).
It is impossible to make a new copyleft license with new requirements that is compatible with the old version. Again, bringing the GPL's patent text in to line with every other major "open source" license required an incompatible change. However... if that was the only change (or typical of the changes), a lot fewer people would be bitching about the GPL3 and would consider moving their code from GPL2 to GPL3. IMO, and I do have a right to an opinion as a GPL2 developer, the GPL3 far overreaches what I would have liked an update to do. It overreached so far that it lost me from the "free software" community to the "open source" community. Perhaps I was truly always there to begin with and it just took the FSF's zealotry for me to see it.
Even if there is a GPLv2 fork of some of these projects, it's extremely unlikely that it will become the dominant version. Companies like Sun and IBM put a lot of work into getting the patent clauses right in GPLv3 - they're not going to want to screw around with an obsolete license if they don't have to. AFAIK, and I could very well be wrong, none of the major employers of coders have said that they will be switching to GPL3 for their code yet (and, unless a contract says otherwise, the code is a work for hire and belongs to the company... the employees can continue to develop under the GPL2 fork or find a new job if they want to do GPL3). It's still early and we know the various legal teams haven't had a chance to fully wrap their head around the license, but what if Novell, RH, IBM, or Linux Foundation, etc decide that none of their employees will be creating GPL3 code? It's also worth noting that a LOT of the GNU stuff are just, relatively speaking, simple tools that only require maintenance and not new features. I don't see any new groundbreaking features coming in gzip, bison, cpio, patch, etc any time soon so a fork really isn't going to fall behind there. The most important GNU project, from a "it's really damn hard to replace" perspective, is gcc. I think just about every other project has an available replacement already, certainly from a user perspective (ie, only a dev is going to care if there's a C compiler on their box). Even then, the Intel compiler is available if it has to be used.
As for comments about Sun... I'll believe they're going to GPL3 Solaris when I see it. I've seen reports of some of their own community fighting them about CDDL->GPL3.
You say "for example", but that is the *only* example - and that only because of FDA regulations that are innately in conflict with the idea of free software. There are more examples. I already mentioned wireless devices (but is a company going to even create a blob for GPL3 code if there is more uncertainty that the blob could open them up to patent issues, federal regulation issues, etc?). How about credit card transactions? The owner of the terminal cannot change the software on the terminal at all. Again, another market GPL3 is locked out of. I could sit here coming up with ideas all day and not catch all of them... Can you predict where the embedded market is going to be trying to go in 5 or 10 years? It's probably the fastest growing computer market out there right now and the GPL3 blindly wants to risk not being a part of that market, making sure people to proprietary software in order to keep them "free."
The compatibility issue for source code exchange does exist, but it's an unavoidable problem that occurs when a copyleft license is updated. The recommended use of the GPLv2 was to say "GPLv2 or later" for exactly this reason. And the update was necessary, if for no other reason than to bring the GPL into line with other licenses on the issue of patent protection. The recommended usage says to use "GPLv2 or later" because Stallman wants to control the licensing of your code. Frankly, I don't trust anyone that I don't have close ties to to handle future licensing cases of my code. The fact that I (and many others) disagree with the GPL3 shows exactly why nobody should do that. RMS could get hit by a bus tomorrow and MS could come in and offer every FSF board member a billion dollars each to take over control of the board. Are you going to trust the MS/FSF to license your code then?
As for an updating being needed, how about trying to make it a compatible update rather than setting out from the start to make it an incompatible one? Because you'd be wasting your opportunity to use the peak popularity of your software for your ideology?
If you were really attached to the GPLv2 specifically, then it really sucks - but that is no longer the license for FSF copyrighted code. If you want to use new FSF code, you're going to have to play by the FSF rules. I'll keep using GPL2 and probably will release future stuff I write under the GPL2. I really hope some of the major players fork the GNU tools to keep them at GPL2. If not, I'm sure we're going to see more attention going to projects like busybox and ulibc that the FSF doesn't control. In fact, I'd really savor it if the FSF made themselves totally irrelevant by willfully fracturing the community.
Slashdot Mirror
politics.slashdot.org, where -1 flamebait means "you didn't post the group think"
Of course, as another poster said once, this is mr. Malda site, and he can post whatever he wants... but of course we can also rant as much as we like =o) Same poster actually... both were me, probably posting anonymously at the time to protect my karma. It's almost necessary if you're going to post the non-Kos view on a slashdot politics article. And actually, on the second quote, I also thanked Rob for letting us complain about how we think these types of stories put slashdot on a bad path.
Hillary always knew what was going on... she's a very, very shrewd politician and so is her husband. On that vein, she really is a totalitarian marxist, but she knows that it won't play politically in the US so she pretends to be a moderate. She wrote her college thesis about her idol, Saul Alinsky, who was a leftist radical and "the father of grassroots organizing." Her biggest mistake gave her her only major political set back while also revealing her stripes. The 1993-4 Hillary Care plan where the government would control things down to the level of telling you what doctor you were allowed to go to while forcing a state take over of 1/7th of the US economy and introducing whole new levels of taxation on people.
In terms of popularity, she held on to her position as Senator of New York Her choice to run from NY is another example of her political savvy. First of all, lets look at the party enrollment. 5,320,943 Democrats, 3,015,385 Republicans, 2,331,561 unaffiliated. Many of those Republicans are fairly liberal and I'm not sure why they even associate with the party. A Republican candidate needs to garner every Republican vote (bridging the divide and getting the conservatives and liberals to vote for them) as well as all of those unaffiliated votes just to put them in the default position of the Democrat. They need to get some Democratic votes to actually win. Also factor in that the media never asked Hillary the tough questions, they portrayed Lazio as a victimizer for trying to get her to sign a campaign financing pledge, they failed to mention that her infamous "listening tour" was all pre-scripted questions asked by people on an invitation only basis, etc. Basically, Hillary couldn't lose and she deliberately chose NY because there are only a handful of states in the country with that kind of demographic with an open seat... and she needed experience of her own if she was going to further her political ambition.
On a side note, 3,744,244 of those Democratic voters live in NYC, Long Island, Rockland or Westchester Counties. Despite taking up a small fraction of the area of the state (I'd guesstimate single digit percentage), they control the entire state and have no clue that there is a huge body of land north and west of them. Back in the 90s, they held up state budgets to force the state to renew WWII era rent control policies for NYC and they're constantly forcing mandates statewide that are good for NYC but are crippling the rest of our state. As manufacturing and industry have left Buffalo and Rochester, young people are fleeing to find economic opportunity leaving behind a rapidly aging population, an ever increasing number of government employees and every increasing taxes which just fuel the cycle more. But hey, NYC is thriving and the Island is nice, so who cares. I'm also still waiting for Hillary to fulfill her 2000 campaign promise to help bring 200,000 new jobs to upstate NY.
I easily have the biggest chest of any male on either side of the family. However, I used to be tiny like the guys on my mom's side until I was about 7. Around the same time, I was diagnosed with chronic asthma and was on a constant regimen of various steroids (regularly until I was 18, sporadically since because my asthma doesn't kick in as often) to try to control it (likely cause is both parents were smokers). I've always wondered whether there was a connection there regarding my sudden change in metabolism, bone growth and the steroids. My chest definitely started growing beyond my peers pre-puberty. There used to be a gap between the gym lockers and the wall and most of the guys could fit back there but not me, even though I was still thinner than them in the gut.
Also factor in that my dad has a hypothyroid condition. My sister was also diagnosed with it after having a baby and seeing an endocrinologist. My dad's mom's mom had goiters the size of baseballs too. There is obviously a genetic connection in the family, though to my knowledge nobody else has been tested for it. It might, however, explain our metabolic problems with stomach weight and could be the reason why I plateau on weight loss despite sticking to my diet.
Fact is, weight isn't simply a matter of calories in. I was eating about 1000 calories a day for three months while continuing to walk 5-6 miles a day and I couldn't drop any more weight. According to various calculators, I require 2200-2500 calories to maintain my weight. Given the difference, I still should have been losing at least 1200 calories (or a third of a pound) per day.
The "or later version" text is in the recommended use section of the GPL license file; It is very much outside of the terms and conditions of the license. You cannot convert GPL2 code to GPL3 code unless the software is specifically licensed under "GPL2 or any later version." It is precisely that reason that the Linux kernel cannot go to the GPL3 even if Linus wanted to without a lot of code having to be replaced.
If you're worried that future versions of the license can cause problems, the best thing to do is to license your code under a specific version (or versions) that you agree with rather than giving a third party that you don't control the power to control the license of your software. If you're so sure of your position, change the license on Linux to GPL3 tomorrow and distribute it... I'm sure several kernel authors will send you some nasty letters threatening to see you in court if you don't immediately cease your actions.
How about being able to filter by author and topic at the same time... ie, I don't want to see any kdawson politics stories but I might want to read a story he posts on a shuttle launch or I might also want to see a story another editor posts in the politics section. That way, people can go -kdawson*poltics or -zonk*games.
Whether or not a pro-football player can get a job playing football is similar to the whole **AA thing. Complain that their business model (aka job) changed and they were unable to adapt so they're owed something. Thousands of kids go to college on football scholarships hoping to make it pro but never will. What do they do with the rest of their lives? Maybe become an actor, a cop (one of my high school football coaches is a police officer and former member of the Seahawks), a doctor (eye doctor in town is a former nfl player), etc. Most of them go to college for four years, often for free, why feel bad if they didn't use their opportunity to get an education in case things didn't pan out with pro football?
Not just with TM and copy write Pet peeve here... it's copyright (copyrighted)... as in the right to copy something. A copywriter is a person who basically writes up advertising. There's no such thing as copy write or copy written.
What's wrong with being bilingual? If schools start teaching spanish people complain. Why? I mean... "the more you know", right? If instead of speaking one language, you can speak 2? That's cool, opens a lot of possibilities.
There's nothing wrong with being bilingual. The proponents of making the US english only see it as a means of protecting our culture, making sure that you can go anywhere in the US and be able to find help if you need it, etc. I respect people's right to do whatever they want (as long as they aren't hurting someone else) but is it really that bad to expect people who want to emigrate to your country to want to actually be a part of that country? By all means, keep your traditions, food, etc and share them with others, but you need to accept some of the culture you decided to be a part of and one of the most fundamental things that define a culture is its language.
Also factor in that, under the 14th Amendment, if you make government accessible in one alternative language, you have to do it for ALL languages (equal protection clause). I don't remember off the top of my head, but that means making every form, guide, service, etc available in more than 100 languages. I think it's cool if you want to learn the language of the family that lives next door... it's not cool for them to force their language on you. Look at the case in Maryland where a rapist had his case thrown out because they couldn't find a translator for his native language despite him graduating from an US high school which requires fluency in english and his attendence of a state university.
Also, america is also ashamed of the south. You like white christmas and all that crap, and also, that's the way christmas is supposed to be. I wonder if christmas is white in Florida, or even in New Orleans? No, but you don't talk about that. People in those places go barefoot and drive in dirt roads, ewww. They also chase alligators and fish in the mississippi. I mean, if you're fishing it MUST be in some pretty lake or a crystaline river, surrounded by mountains and brown maple leaves in fucking vermont.
There is a large cultural divide between the elitists who live in metropolitan areas in the US and those who live in the south and rural areas. You can see it right here on Slashdot pretty frequently, especially in voting related stories. You see, anyone who doesn't vote the way self-righteous "learned" people do must be idiots. It couldn't be that different people value different things and that living in different areas can give you different perspectives on life. When you're making six figures and only surrounded by similar people, it's easy to look down at anyone who doesn't. Besides, those are the peasants who provide you with things like food so they aren't so much human, they're more like servants to the narcissism of the elite.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? There's a whole world of things, languages, foods, places, and you complain because ILLEGALS ARE TAKING OUR JOBS AND NOT PAYING TAXES! What good are taxes for? I mean, in my country I can at least get FREE medical attention, even AIDS drugs. Even if I don't have a job and don't pay taxes. Hell, even if I'm not a citizen, I can still get all of that. Do you pay your taxes? What do these taxes do anyway? You need to pay for health, food, college. In my country, at least I can CHOOSE. I can pay for health, or use the State health services (sometimes the latter is better). I can go to a private university, but I can also go (and I do) to a state-funded university (and my degree is just as good in any of them). And I can even get free food from the government (and not food stamps, to be treated like scum at the store).
And such is politics. There are those believe that the government should provide everything you'll ever need. Others believe it is up to the individual to achieve those things a
and he was racist exactly HOW? Because he used the word "Mexican"?
That's one of the biggest problems in American politics today... nobody is willing to speak the truth because of constant appeals to emotion, ad hominems, character assassinations when the message is too strong to shoot down, etc.
Republicans want to starve your kids, kill the old people and erode the foundation of our country by eliminating immigration!
Democrats want to steal all your money, hate America and drive us back to the stone age!
Republicans hate minorities!
Democrats hate Christians!
Facts and logic rarely enter any political debate anymore, it's all about who can sling the most mud and frame their opponent into a seemingly evil corner.
In my case, I haven't owned a console since the SNES. The vast majority of my gaming came on the PC with the occasional session at a friend or cousin's house. More than a year ago, I was already ready to buy a Revolution. The name change to Wii did make me mock it even though I wanted one. And that's just it, it got me excited about consoles again. For the last 15 years or so, it's mostly been games that the computer is good at that I've played: FPS, RTS, sports (in particular EA's NHL line) and MMOs. I own almost the full line of Loki games and to this day, still play some of them from time to time.
So what did it for me? What made me so excited that I had to have one? The new controller mechanism and the idea (successfully marketed to me) that they wanted to make games that were fun versus crapped down versions of games I prefer to play on my PC. I was coming off my addiction to EQ and I wanted something I could play on my terms, whether it be for 15 minutes for 2 hours at a time. I'm 30 and a lot of my friends lack the time to sit down to play hardcore style. Almost all my friends were excited about the Wii. My dad had a stroke and can't use his left hand, I was excited that, even though he hasn't played a game since the Atari, the Wii's controller would allow him to play. Sure enough, there are a number of games that work well one handed. Find me another console that lets a one handed player enjoy games.
The buzz about the Wii just felt right... I was excited and my friends who've been out of the console scene for years were excited. My more hardcore friends wanted to pick it up so that they could feel complete/in case any good games came out for it. I felt the PS3 was all hype and was very overpriced. One friend wanted one, two wanted to buy one to scalp when they came out given the production numbers were going to be so low. The 360, I thought, would do ok... I didn't see anything special about it other than the fact it has extremely deep pockets behind it and that it was the cheaper of the two consoles vying for the teenage/college market. So yeah, I predicted Wii, 360, PS3 myself. I really didn't expect the Wii to still be having supply issues this far out though (not that they wouldn't sell but I guess I just expected production rates to exceed demand).
Here's a Slashdot Poll from March 2006.
22057 picked Sony to win by the end of this year
13559 picked Microsoft
9183 picked Nintendo
There were obviously a few of us who thought Nintendo was going to win. A fairly significant amount given the inertia Sony already had in the market at that point and the general attitude toward MS here. That's better than 20% of people picking Nintendo, not exactly an insignificant amount.
Which is why I said "copy this code into" rather than "link." As in, you can't copy portions of the code into the gcc compiler tree now that it is GPLv3. You are entirely free to link it, however.
The compilers don't matter... what does matter is that GPL3 code is incompatible with GPL2 code so you cannot copy this code into GPL3 programs you write unless Intel re-licenses it as GPL2/GPL3 code. If they never change the license on it, welcome to the software divide created by the FSF in their zeal to make the GPL3 incompatible with GPL2.
Try to take my very crappy and unimportant GPLv2 code (note, not GPLv2 or any later version) and relicense it/use it with GPLv3 code and you'll be getting a letter from my lawyer. I dare you to do it to IBM.
Further, if you accept the FSF definition of "derivative works", ie, that linking constitutes derivation, we have another really fun issue. Lets say my program uses a GPL2+ library and I write my code for that GPL2+ library. However, the author of the library releases the identical library under GPL3+. None of my code changed and I still intend on having it linked only to GPL2+ code. Down the line, a distributor links my application with the GPL3+ version of the library. Said distributor has forfeited his right to distribute my work as well as the work of the library's author. Meanwhile, the library author has grounds to sue both the distributor and I for copyright infringement even though I never intended my work to be linked with GPL3+ code (it just happened to be compatible with my function calls).
Part of the discussion on the gcc mailing list centered around that idea as well... if any gcc released after July 31, 2007 is legally incompatible with GPL2 code, maybe a major version number bump is in order (or in the case of a library, going from libwhatever.so.1 to libwhatever.so.2) to help alleviate those types of issues by making the line more defined.
The GPLv2 existed long before the GPLv3. It is double speak to claim that something invented 16 years prior was invented with the intention to be incompatible with something that would come almost two decades later.
Lets put it this way... "It is not the Patriot Act which is incompatible with the Constitution. The Constitution is the one conflicting with most other foreign legal systems and UN policies. The Patriot Act is in fact less incompatible*."
*Since it is more along the lines of what third world dictators would do and there are more of them than free first world countries.
Because it drives a wedge between GPLv2 and GPLv3 developers. I've written some unimportant GPLv2 stuff in the past. My code with stay GPLv2 because I don't like GPLv3. I don't distribute binaries, just my source, so in no way am I bundling hardware with free software. However, I now have to make sure any code that I use (be it linking or borrowing a couple functions) has to be from a GPLv2/v2+ code base. That might mean having to fork libraries (not all of them are LGPL) and other code rather than getting it from an upstream source or depending on a GPLv2 copy being available because even at the source level, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are legally incompatible.
For argument's sake, lets say I include some code from the gzip package as an internal function used in storing my data files in my program. It turns out that there is a buffer overrun and a patch is posted to fix it. Now, is the patch against GPLv2+ or GPLv3+ code? If 1.3.12 is GPLv2 and 1.3.13 is GPLv3 but they are otherwise identical, how am I to resolve the licensing of the patch? If it is derivative of the GPLv3 code, it makes my copy of 1.3.12 GPLv3+, which, in turn, makes the already existing code in my program legally unusable.
If your answer is to relicense my code to make my headache go away, that is precisely the problem with what the FSF is doing. They're using their existing code base in an attempt to strong arm other authors to release their code, which has happily existed with the FSF code base for 16 years, under a license that they may disagree with. That puts the FSF on the level of a Microsoft or *IAA. What's theirs is theirs and what's mine is theirs.
I would assume they'd test it on high-risk candidates. Gay men seeking HIV positive partners (saw something, I think it was on HBO, about gay men who are actually trying to infect themselves as some sort of self punishment), spouses who are married to someone with HIV, possibly prostitutes, intravenous drug users, etc. Basically, people who have a reasonable chance of contracting the disease through their every day lives already.
You can't ethically ask those people to try to get infected after receiving the vaccine, but you can analyze the statistics between traditional rates of infection, infection in the vaccine group and infection in the placebo group (which should line up with the traditional rate and I'm assuming they'd still want to do a placebo group as a control, maybe offering them the real vaccine after the trial as part of their compensation).
On a side note, for the cynical amongst us who think pharms won't create a vaccine for a common virus, they did create a vaccine for some forms of HPV that lead to cervical cancer. Also, even if a drug isn't produced in the US, the company will still patent it to prevent competitors from duplicating and selling the product... but that won't stop foreign entities who don't care about US patents from producing it... and if a foreign body produces it and you can't get it in the US, there will be a pretty massive outrage and pressure brought to bring it to market.
Ever change one of the primary header files in a multi-million line program? Not all programmers are just writing a shell script or fleshing out a function or two. The faster you can compile, the sooner you can test and the sooner you can get on with programming. Try building firefox sometime. It took me 50 minutes the other night (albeit on my aging dual athlon 1800MP desktop).
Even if there is a GPLv2 fork of some of these projects, it's extremely unlikely that it will become the dominant version. Companies like Sun and IBM put a lot of work into getting the patent clauses right in GPLv3 - they're not going to want to screw around with an obsolete license if they don't have to. AFAIK, and I could very well be wrong, none of the major employers of coders have said that they will be switching to GPL3 for their code yet (and, unless a contract says otherwise, the code is a work for hire and belongs to the company... the employees can continue to develop under the GPL2 fork or find a new job if they want to do GPL3). It's still early and we know the various legal teams haven't had a chance to fully wrap their head around the license, but what if Novell, RH, IBM, or Linux Foundation, etc decide that none of their employees will be creating GPL3 code? It's also worth noting that a LOT of the GNU stuff are just, relatively speaking, simple tools that only require maintenance and not new features. I don't see any new groundbreaking features coming in gzip, bison, cpio, patch, etc any time soon so a fork really isn't going to fall behind there. The most important GNU project, from a "it's really damn hard to replace" perspective, is gcc. I think just about every other project has an available replacement already, certainly from a user perspective (ie, only a dev is going to care if there's a C compiler on their box). Even then, the Intel compiler is available if it has to be used.
As for comments about Sun... I'll believe they're going to GPL3 Solaris when I see it. I've seen reports of some of their own community fighting them about CDDL->GPL3.
The compatibility issue for source code exchange does exist, but it's an unavoidable problem that occurs when a copyleft license is updated. The recommended use of the GPLv2 was to say "GPLv2 or later" for exactly this reason. And the update was necessary, if for no other reason than to bring the GPL into line with other licenses on the issue of patent protection. The recommended usage says to use "GPLv2 or later" because Stallman wants to control the licensing of your code. Frankly, I don't trust anyone that I don't have close ties to to handle future licensing cases of my code. The fact that I (and many others) disagree with the GPL3 shows exactly why nobody should do that. RMS could get hit by a bus tomorrow and MS could come in and offer every FSF board member a billion dollars each to take over control of the board. Are you going to trust the MS/FSF to license your code then?
As for an updating being needed, how about trying to make it a compatible update rather than setting out from the start to make it an incompatible one? Because you'd be wasting your opportunity to use the peak popularity of your software for your ideology?
If you were really attached to the GPLv2 specifically, then it really sucks - but that is no longer the license for FSF copyrighted code. If you want to use new FSF code, you're going to have to play by the FSF rules. I'll keep using GPL2 and probably will release future stuff I write under the GPL2. I really hope some of the major players fork the GNU tools to keep them at GPL2. If not, I'm sure we're going to see more attention going to projects like busybox and ulibc that the FSF doesn't control. In fact, I'd really savor it if the FSF made themselves totally irrelevant by willfully fracturing the community.