Licensing decisions are usually made for legal reasons rather than technical ones. The GPLv3 is being adopted because it fixes a number of legal weaknesses in GPLv2 - that's why it was developed, and that's why it's being adopted. And see... there's the difference between the Linus and the RMS approach. For one, Linus doesn't see tivoization as a weakness. The FSF is trying to instill a legal means to fight technology - the anti-Tivoization clause is no better than the CAN-SPAM. In fact, the hole it plugged has already been re-opened before it was officially released. Tivo leases the boxes instead of selling them and they aren't in violation of the GPL3.
When all you focus on is achieving a single goal, you tend to get tunnel vision and you begin to miss more tangential things. The primary difference between the letter of the GPL2 and the letter of the GPL3 is purely ideological. It's RMS trying to leverage the existing GNU code base, as well as the code of the true believers, to force other people to adopt his new license and his new ideology. The fact that a FSF (sorry, a FSFLA "sister organization" member) zealot spent two weeks heckling lkml is an example of that. The fact that FSFers would rather have people use proprietary software than a Tivo is another example that they are so caught up in their dogma, they can't see reality. Again, RMS hasn't been able to tell the gcc folks what they're supposed to license certain things under despite already mandating that they immediately change licenses. That shows how little he's thought about the ramifications and how much the goal means to him regardless.
Pick any topic zealots flock to... the NRA, evangelists, atheists, pro-lifers, pro-choicers, war protesters, etc. Almost all of them are single issue people. Nothing but their one true cause matters to them. Who cares about the Patriot Act, out of control spending and Guantanamo Bay? The guy didn't make any new gun laws so he's alright by me. Your candidate will create world peace, elimination the national debt and put a chicken in every pot but wants to make it so I can't own a bazooka? The guy is villainous and just wants to take away our rights. After dealing with a lot of FSF zealots since the pot got stirred on lkml, I see those FSFers as no better than any other nut case. Granted, I may use their old license but I'll be damned if I'm going to carry the banner to the point everyone deserves a M1A1 at home just because their leader said only extremes are enough.
They're exactly as incompatible as any other sets of code with two licenses. This is like saying that GPLv2 and the MPL are incompatible - yea, they are, and the community has been coping with that sort of problem for years. And yet you keep missing the point... perhaps willfully. The MPL was never compatible with the GPL2. It didn't have 15 years of ties to code which are suddenly going to be broken for political reasons rather than technical ones. A GPL2 app that was fine two weeks ago is now in violation of the GPL3 if you upgrade a dependency unless you jump through hoops, making sure that you link only to GPL2+ sources, perhaps even bringing a whole new level of DLL-hell as every GPL2 application has to make sure that forked GPL2+ libraries are present. I know... it's the stick part of the GPL3: trying to leverage existing code people depend on to force them into a license they probably disagree with if they aren't changing on their own. IMO, it's completely and utterly unethical.
The GPL3's cure is worse than the poison AFAIC. That people refuse to acknowledge the problems with the GPL3 (or instead want to shove them off as everyone else's problems if they do admit there is something going on there) goes to show that it is not the GPL2only people who misunderstand the GPL3. Who needs Microsoft to spread false fear, uncertainty and doubt when the FSF created it's own valid FUD by dividing the community with an incompatible license?
Just to be completely clear: The GPLv3 does not cause any compatibility issue for different programs working together. Your car analogy is nonsensical, because the GNU code and the Linux kernel can happily be under different licenses and still work together fine.
Working together, no... but being combined, yes. The Linux kernel contains a copy of gunzip, for example. Once gzip goes GPL3, new versions are incompatible with being able to be put in Linux so the Linux developers are going to have to take over maintenance of any security problems which come up. The fun part? To get a patch into a GNU project, you need to hand the FSF the copyright to your patch... and the FSF is very likely to only license patches under the same license as the project they are part of and derivative of. There has been a thread on the gcc mailing list about how RMS has given them a date of July 31st to release gcc 4.2.1 as GPL2+ and after that, EVERYTHING is going GPL3+, including any further patches to 4.2.1. The best part is that it HAS to be moved to GPL3 even though they don't know how they want to license stuff like libgcc.
From July 31st on, any patches to gcc from a non-GPL2+ specific source have the ability to taint the source of your gcc to GPL3+. If someone develops a patch to fix miscompiled code against 4.2.2, it is incompatible with 4.2.1 even though it is the exact same code base. Because of that, the gcc steering committee is trying to decide whether or not to EOL all previous versions of gcc even though 4.3 isn't going to be ready any time soon. Now... sure, you can develop your own patches to keep the compiler GPL2, but the minute you start looking over the GPL3 code base, you're tempting yourself to violate licenses and once you become a GPL3 developer, it is hard to be a GPL2 developer lest you risk tainting the code by inadvertently copying over some GPL3 code. The licensing issues are a nightmare, especially because such an important project is having a license changed rammed through in a two week time frame for political reasons instead of technical ones.
However, the result is... yes, GPL2 and GPL3 programs can run side by side on the same box and even be shipped on the same CD/DVD. Outside of that though, they are totally incompatible and that drives a wedge into the community.
This sounds like unsubstantiated FUD. The GPLv3 doesn't force anyone into a political ideology anymore than GPLv2 did. If you have some specific, practical problem with a specific part of the GPLv3 then we can have a reasoned discussion, but your comments are as vague and non-specific as possible.
It most certainly does... if it didn't, there wouldn't be added restrictions to say what you can do with GPL3 software. The GPL2 was all about keeping the source code open, do what you want as long as the changes are available. The GPL3 is much more like a EULA where it dictates where the code can be used. Through the Tivoization clause, it bans use in embedded medical devices, for example.
Just because you don't like having the GNU religion criticized doesn't mean there aren't valid complaints. Throwing the FUD banner out there is just sticking your head in the ground claiming you don't want to hear me because maybe there are problems with incompatibility between GPL2 and GPL3 and that the GPL3's added restrictions are a double edged sword that make it a worse license for a lot of people. The FSF and their followers have absolutely refused to budge on the Tivoization clause though regardless of how much discussion there was about it prior to the official release of the GPL3. To claim it isn't a valid criticism now, or that I'm not being specific enough when I've specifically given my problems with the GPL3 being anti-tivoization and incompatibility with GPL2, reminds me Martin Luther and the Catholic Church. Far easier to excommunicate a supporter who doesn't like the way the church is heading than
License proliferation is a known problem, and the GPLv3 doesn't make it significantly worse. Most GPLed software today is released under "GPLv2 or any later version", so it can be upgraded to v3 with no problems. The codebase of "GPLv2 only" software isn't significantly bigger than the codebase of Apache Licence 2.0 software (which the GPLv3 is now compatible with), so the License proliferation issue is about as bad as it was before. Not quite... the apache license wasn't compatible with the GPL2 so programs written under that license didn't start out with GPL connections. However, GPL2 only code was compatible with other GPL2/GPL2+ code so it is dependent on it. Since we love car analogies at Slashdot...
RMS and Linus built a car together. RMS supplied the frame, body, seats and gauges. Linus supplied the engine. One day, RMS decided that, while he liked Linus' engine, he didn't like the fact that other people could buy a RMSLinus car, take the engine out and put it in their car. RMS decided that he would no longer sell a frame with engine mounts that would fit Linus' engine. Oh, sure, Linus is free to change his engine so that it will fit the new mounts but that means that other people can no longer use Linus' engine. Linus doesn't care who uses his engine as long as they tell him about any customizations they made, however, he's now stuck building an engine with no car to put it in unless he decides to start making his own frame, doors, etc. That the new frame allows you to use a few new accessories like a winch that you couldn't use before, doesn't mean nobody has a problem now. For one, RMS's car has an engine that can barely turn over, much less run the car. Linus can no longer make new cars unless someone comes along to make a frame for him again. Meanwhile, Microsoft is coming out with a shiny new car that badly needs some tuning but at least you can actually buy it. Boy, RMS automotive really showed everyone else.
As for the ideological disagreement, what exactly is the problem that you have? Is the "installation instructions" clause really that big a deal? I mean... even Linus has said he would consider moving to GPLv3 if there was some technical advantage to doing so. Does that mean everyone around here will start supporting the Patriot Act if it means we catch a terrorist or two? "Hey, I completely disagree with this on moral grounds but, eh, you caught a terrorist so I'm behind you now." I don't care how people use my software... the whole point of releasing it was to let others use it. All that I ask is that if you want to use it, you keep any modifications you make open. As long as you do that, lock it up and do whatever you want... For me, the GPL2 was a way to protect my interests as the author. I could pretty much care less about what that means for the user. The GPL3 is less about using software how you want to, as long as you keep the source open, and more a means of forcing developers into a political ideology.
GPL4: Republicans are evil and want to take your rights. By agreeing to the terms of this license, you guarantee that you will never restrict the rights of citizens in any way.
GPL5: In order to make sure users are truly free, you agree to support socialized health care, government funded housing for all, etc.
As for "overly verbose and complicated", that's your personal opinion as a non-lawyer who apparently isn't entirely convinced by the free software viewpoint. The FSF and a number of major corporations had *teams* of lawyers and non-lawyers trying to accomplish the specific goal of making sure that GPLv3 software is and will remain free software - my personal opinion as a non-laywer who supports the idea of free software is that they got it just about right. For a little background on the angle I see things from, I'm more of an open source type guy (I don't care what you do with my code as long as the source code to it remains open). I'm not a BSD guy, I don't want my source code closed. The GPL2 does exactly what I want in a very clean way.
My primary issue with the GPL3 is that it is deliberately incompatible with the GPL2. That wedge divides us into three camps instead of two now: BSDers, Open Sourcers and Free Softwarers. The latter two can borrow from the first at will but are now incompatible with borrowing from each other like they have for the last 15 years. Toss in that the FSF knows that we (open source guys) rely on many of their projects and they are trying to use that to leverage us into switching to a license we disagree with. Either we compromise our morality to match the FSF's morality or else we have to fork or recreate the works we've relied on in the past. Divided, we don't stand a chance at keeping up with companies who have a singular mission and already provide a vertical solution. That wasn't the making of the Open Source guys, it was entirely the wish of the FSF. The best part is many of the FSF zealots run around screaming it is the Open Source guys fault for not blindly trusting a third party to determine the future licensing of our software. The FSF are acting like the Jehovahs (or insert any proselytizer of your choice... they just happen to be the ones who annoyed me for three months before I got fed up and scared them off) who come over every week to try to get you to convert but just end up pissing you off and ensuring you won't want anything to do with them.
But... all of these things are way overblown as legitimate problems. For end users, the GPLv3 is strictly an improvement. For developers who don't intend to violate the GPLv3 by trying remove freedoms from end users, the GPLv3 is also an obvious improvement. I'm a GPL2 only developer who doesn't even distribute binaries of my own work... but the GPL3 is a problem for me because it is incompatible with GPL2 code. As I said, the FSF is shooting its foot off to try to kill a fly. I haven't read the LGPL3 but depending on its wording (I'm told it's GPL3 with exceptions), linking to glibc and gtk may now be a problem for my applications. If that's the case, it is a major, major problem and it's not because I'm Satan trying to harm my end users. I consider that the opposite of an improvement for both my users (who may now have to have multiple forked versions of libraries around for every program) as well as for me (because I either have to rely on someone else to maintain a compatible fork or do it myself).
The only people who have room for legitimate complaint are device manufacturers with regulatory burdens, but laws requiring them to distribute their software in a manner that cannot be modified do innately conflict with the goal of the GPL. Or people like me who the FSF is trying to strong-arm into a morality that I disagree with even though I distribute neither hardware nor binaries. As I've said before, my work is utterly meaningless on any level (I've tracked about 1000 downloads in 9 years) so I don't matter so much in the big picture, but there are more significant projects that will matter.
Because the FDA says you can't sell a heart monitor that someone can change the software on without FDA approval?
That doesn't sound much like a "consumer device" to me.
From the GPL3 section 6:
A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.
And here's the problem with an overly verbose legal document. A heart monitor is obviously not a consumer device as far as common language goes... but the GPL3 paints us into a corner
Is it normally used for personal, family or household purposes? It is arguable that medical use is personal use, especially if I'm using the product at home in a hospice situation (or how about other medical devices like a diabetes meter (pretty common these days for non-critical patients), electric wheelchairs (again, fairly standard home use), tube feeder, respirator, etc). The GPL3 then proclaims that "A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product." Therefore, even if it is 99% likely that the heart monitor will be used in a hospital, it has no bearing on whether or not it is a consumer device.
You can wave your hand and say "these aren't the consumer devices that you are looking for" but will legal counsel do that when the executives in charge of embedded companies need to decide whether to use Linux, Hurd, BSD, WinCE, QNX or whatever? Potential liability means potential costs and those executives are usually going to go with the safest route. That means staying away from GPL3 software even if buying QNX costs more up front. That means fewer people working on, and contributing back to, open source software and more users being locked into proprietary devices.
In an effort to split hairs, the GPL3 is overly verbose and complicated. The more specific you get, the more you open yourself up to wiggle room to get around the intent of your license. The "flaw" in the GPL2, from what I believe to be the FSF's position, is that it specifically claimed that "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." It specifically doesn't cover execution, replacement of binaries existing hardware, etc because it specifically said that everything else is outside the scope of the license. We already know what the solution is to defeat the anti-tivoization clause - Tivo will own the boxes and rent them to you instead. Since they own them, you have no right to modify them. In fact, since they own them, they aren't distributing the binaries so they don't even need to release the source code (just as your workplace doesn't need to give you the source to the GPL binaries on your workstation).
The actual FCC rules are a bit more complicated than that, but - in any case - this has been clearly solved by the binary firmware solution that's used in many wireless cards today. The GPLv3 doesn't interfere with that at all.
A lot of companies use those binary blobs because they have other restrictions from letting them release them as open source (such as patents on graphics technology). A lot of the more FSF minded people alre
why put in *extra hardware* to prevent users from voiding the warranty on their appliance? Because the FDA says you can't sell a heart monitor that someone can change the software on without FDA approval? Because the FCC says you can't create wireless hardware that allow users (and we're not talking an EE who could create the hardware from scratch) to violate the spectrum (for example, bleeding into other slots, boosting the power and blocking other users, etc?) Because if you want to create a credit card terminal, you have to make it so a user can't change the software (so they can't reprogram it to steal credit cards, to try to DDOS the credit card systems, etc?)
There are all kinds of embedded devices which can't use GPL3 code because they can't create the device and still adhere to the terms of the GPL forcing them to make it so users can tamper with the code that would violate their government licensing mandates (good luck selling a medical device without FDA approval). The GPL3 is specifically disallowing itself in use of hundreds of potential devices that haven't yet made it to market. Instead, those companies will have to choose GPL2 software (which they may need to fork and maintain themselves), BSD software or something completely proprietary. The Tivo fly landed on the FSF's foot and they shot the whole foot off to try to kill the fly.
But if anything this makes Linus the hypocrite, he is the one who wants to use the GPL (to make his kernel of any use whatsoever) without accepting the political ideas behind the GPL. Sad thing, but political ideals, require sacrifices. If you believe in democracy then your first sacrifice must be that you are willing to listen to majority rule for example.
For one thing, the kernel is perfectly usable regardless of the license it is under (whether or not people would want to contribute to it is a different story). That said...
When polled about abortion(at least in the US), a majority of people say that it is the prerogative of the woman. However, when asked if late term abortions should be legal, a majority say they should be banned unless continuing the pregnancy would jeopardize the life of the mother. The point being. just because you believe in something doesn't mean that you think that something shouldn't have limits placed on it. Linus likes the GPL2 because it meant his source could be open and would have to stay open... he didn't license it under the GPL2 because he cared about dogma about the "four freedoms" (political ideals) or anything like that, he did it because the terms of the license suited HIS needs (and it was the license he used, not the entirety of the FSF dogma). By the same token, being pro-choice doesn't mean you have to accept the entire platform of the NOW (or pro-life meaning you have to worship the Pope).
The GPL3 is incompatible with the GPL2. The GPL2 specifically says that you cannot use any license which is more restrictive and the GPL3 introduces restrictions that were not in the GPL2.
The GPL2 terms have absolutely NO terms allowing the code to be licensed under another future version of the GPL. I challenge you to read the terms and conditions of the license and find that in there. What it does say, under suggestions on how to use the license (specifically outside of the terms of the license), is
one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.
Copyright (C) year name of author
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
So... unless the author specifically includes the right to use future versions of the license, the right doesn't exist.
The modification to the COPYING file in Linux adds the following:
NOTE! This copyright does not cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does not fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
There are no new restrictions added, Linus was simply clarifying the legal opinion he received regarding the usage of the license (ie, that it doesn't cover the execution of programs). Thus, it was a clarification of Linus' opinion regarding the usage of, not a modification of, the GPL2 license.
PS - had to edit out a few pieces of punctuation in the quotes due to the stupid lameness filter
Let us not forget this all came about because the FSF zealots were trolling lkml about the GPL3 to begin with... Linus didn't exactly go out of his way to bash RMS, the FSF and their followers out of the blue. There was a thread with hundreds of posts started by someone else and FSF fanatics who have contributed nothing to the kernel started trolling. I was involved with the thread off list (since I'm not a kernel dev and I felt it would be inappropriate for me to spout off what I think the kernel devs should do with their code) and I walked away with a severe distaste for the FSF and their concept of "free software." Not satisfied with that, the primary FSF zealot in the thread started another thread with the goal of trying to make Linux dual-licensed so projects like the Hurd could rip code of out Linux since the GPL2 and 3 are incompatible.
Linus has every right to be upset that an organization he explicitly doesn't trust to control the license of his software is badgering him to adopt their new license. When repeatedly told that he doesn't like the new license, they just badger him more to try to convert him (to further their own projects). I get along with most Catholics fine but the Jehovahs, who used to come to my house every Saturday morning so they could try to convert me, can go fsck themselves. All they did was ensure that I saw them as fanatics and thus would never want to associate with them.
As for Linus being egotistical and petty, RMS is no better... and it is RMS' own ego which caused him to divide the FOSS community with the GPL3 by making it incompatible with the GPL2, be presumptive enough that everyone releases GPL2 software for the same reason he does (and further try to leverage the GNU code base to get GPL2only authors to convert their license to his new one even if they disagree with it, invite the PHP worry and open the FOSS community to whole new levels of FUD.
I still play my Wii at least 10 hours a week (got it about a week after launch). I'd play more, but my limiting factor is that I'm currently unemployed so I can't go out and buy game after game (I currently have 5, all of which have at least some, if not a lot, of replayability). Every time I go to a relative's house, they're still begging me to bring my Wii so they can bowl (and some of them have dozens and dozens of rounds under their belt). There are a couple games out there that I still want to get and there is at least one more on the near horizon that I'd like to try (Metroid Prime Hunters is set for next month... I haven't played Metroid since the original, so I'd like so see where things are now).
In a way, your post reminds me of the hardcore raiders back when I was playing EQ. They'd burn through content as fast as possible and then spend the next 3-5 months bitching that there wasn't anything to do. Meanwhile, I played just as much as they did but spent more of my time in the depths of EQ doing quests, exploring, etc that they never did because it wasn't part of the raid game (and thus didn't matter and might as well not exist). So, rather than fix current content, the pressure was always on to come out with another raid oriented expansion to keep the people who raid 40 hours a week happy. The game became mostly about raiding at that point. Keep raiding to keep up, burn out your guild, replace them with people from the next level down raid guild, rinse and repeat until most raiders are burned out and gone and most casuals are sick of being left behind... and where does the population of EQ stand today because of the decisions SOE made due to the pressure from the hardcores that rushed through a quarter of the content and ignored the rest? mmogchart data seems kinda stale (last EQ numbers are a year old) and it shows that almost 2/3rds of the peak number of subscribers have left.
Perhaps the problem is that you aren't the demographic Nintendo is trying to capture with the Wii... I'm thoroughly happy with mine (and so are all of my family members who haven't played a game since pacman on the Atari, if ever). I'm happy with the direction things seem to be going and the pace isn't too bad for me. Then again, maybe I am the demographic they are targeting (30 year old retiree from hardcore gaming who still wants to sit down an hour or two a night to play a game, especially if it means playing with pretty much anyone of my friends or family).
because for a typical 300W desktop 24/7 system you probably would be paying $100/month, more than a thousand a year.
I call BS... my desktop is dual athlon 1800MP with 5 hard drives (500 watt ps)and I've also got a K6II/450 with 2 drives that acts as my personal server. Both are on 24/7. Throw in a laptop, 2 tvs (one on 12 hours a day, the other 24 hours a day for my dad), 2 waterbeds, electric water heater, 10 year old fridge, AC, etc. I used 907 kWh last month for a total of $128.64 (about 14.2 cents a kWh with all taxes, surcharges and fees). Just because my ps is rated at 500 watts doesn't mean it constantly draws that much. Even if it did, 0.3kW*24h*30d = 216 kWh/month or $30.67 a month for your hypothetical 300w desktop. You'd have to be paying over 40 cents a kWh for it to even be plausible for one computer to cost $100/month.
Not to sound like I'm patronizing, but I can tell you one thing that you have to offer a potential mate: you seem to be a thoughtful person. It's a pretty rare trait. For all I know you're really a big-time ass, but based off of what you've written so far, you seem more thoughtful and considerate than anything.
The problem is, while women say they want a thoughtful, considerate guy who can make them laugh, they usually go for the guys with visible symbols: money, looks, etc. Most seem to be content to get the other stuff from their female friends. It has often happened that I will find myself in a situation where a female friend will complain to be about their bf and whatnot, telling me they wish they could have someone more like me, break up with him and then go to the next loser just like him. I end up as the friend that they don't want to risk losing rather than them going "hey, if I want someone just like you, maybe we should consider a relationship."
But you've overcome it before, haven't you? You've dated before, which is pretty big stuff. I've only dated twice (one of which is still ongoing and hopefully will last for life), and was rejected my first time. A relationship is big stuff, and to initiate one takes a lot of effort. Maybe not for the stereotypical frat boy types, but for types like us (I'm presuming we're pretty similar), the entire experience is one of intense nervousness. You've successfully made the moves before. What do you have to lose? Just try, and don't let the outcome dictate your confidence - let the fact that you did it dictate your confidence.
We're not talking about intense nervousness, we're talking pure "fight or flight" response. It can be overcome but it definitely isn't easy. I have to work myself into a near frenzy of confidence to be able to even initiate contact with someone from a dating website. It usually takes a couple of days and in one such instance, I had a friend unintentionally completely collapse my self image within minutes of when I was going to initiate contact. Having hyper-inflated my confidence only to have it collapse put me into a tailspin where I was ready to completely give up and resign myself back into the video game escape permanently. Five days later, I finally managed to say hi to her. Only for her to say "talk to you tomorrow" a couple weeks later and never hear from her again. That's actually a rather positive attempt for me. In working myself up, I generally tell myself the worst they can do is say no... However, I'm almost as afraid that they'll want to continue talking only to end up abusing me like a couple of my exes have (everything from simply cheating on me to intentionally playing sadistic mind games to hurt me). Nothing hurts more than the woman you dated for a couple years that you intend to marry deliberately attempting to psychologically destroy you because it is entertaining.
Have you considered adult education classes, night classes... anything of that sort?... If taking care of your father is the issue, could you find a caretaker for your father? If the location is the issue, could you possibly relocate yourself, or yourself and your father?
I'm looking at a 40 minute drive each way for classes, not to mention the duration of the class itself. As long as my dad is awake, he'll deliberately undermine any attempt at me improving my situation (be it college, trying to go out on a date, spending time with my friends, etc) even though he's more than capable of being alone as long as there isn't an emergency for a couple hours here or there. By the time he goes to bed, it's really too late to do anything. As for a caretaker, I'm looking at $25/hr through the local HHA agency. I could probably get someone cheaper by hiring directly but that has other problems associated with it. Getting him into a day program requires him to qualify for medicaid (welfare) which limits him to $5000 in assets and $617/mo in income, virtually eliminating our ability to surviv
But I also wanted to comment on one of your latter statements. Congratulations on being 30! But why say that you'll never have a family of your own? I'm not sure what age people usually have families at, to be honest. My parents are both doctors - as you probably know, due to the amount of schooling and training it takes to be a doctor, your life "starts" a bit later than others. My mother was around 30 when I was born; my father was 35. I have ambitions to be a doctor myself, and I'm nearing the end of my university experience. My girlfriend would also like to be a doctor. I don't foresee myself having a family before 30. I guess I just wanted to reach out to you and to say don't despair, because for some walks of life, it's perfectly normal, and perfectly doable. Just stay healthy and live a nice, long life to even it out:) Best wishes to you.
I'm 30 years old, live "at home" with my parent (I live in the house I grew up in, technically my dad's house even though I do everything around it), don't have a degree, haven't had a job in 8 months and don't have any prospects atm due to the situation with my dad, despite my best attempts to lose weight, I hit a plateau that I can't get under (200 pounds and I'm a nice short 5'6" (most women like their men a little taller than them)), I live in an economically depressed area of NY that most smarter young adults flee from, etc. Basically (and mind you, this is typical of avoidant people), I feel like I don't offer anything that a potential mate would find attractive. It's not that I don't like myself (self esteem), it's that I assume everyone else is going to reject me (self image). Factor in that the self image produces a panic mode when I find someone that I'd like to get to know better (if in person, my right hand usually starts twitching... in all cases, I build up this massive certainty that I will be rejected (or worse, accepted only to be abused because I think they see me as weak) and I simply shut down.) It's easier to avoid putting myself into that situation all together. Ultimately, I'll see someone interesting, avoid going up to talk to her and later end up regretting it and mentally punishing myself for it.
Why is 30 a big deal? Well, for one, every day I get older is a day wasted as far as finding someone to have that family with. Eventually, my fertility will decrease, as will my potential mate's as time goes on. I want to be able to run around and play with my kids but I can already feel the onset of arthritis in my arm and will likely get it in my back since it runs in the family. My Dad had a brain aneurysm at 17 and another at 40 (that resulted in a stroke and some paralysis). His sister had an aneurysm at 16 and another at 41 (resulting in death). That's not to say that I WILL have an aneurysm (though they can be passed genetically), but it does emphasize how young and unexpectedly life can pretty much take everything from you. Nearly all of my goals for my life were thrown askew when my dad had his stroke (I was 21 at the time making my dad 19 and my mom 17 when I was born). I gave up my college education which in turn meant I'm probably going to live a life of meaningless, crappy jobs, which in turn screws up my financial future and opportunity to have the home I want (I'm grateful I have a home, don't get me wrong... but it was my parents' house, not my house), all of which decreases the likelihood of a reasonably smart woman wanting to have a relationship with me, etc. Having a family is basically the one thing I have an opportunity at still.
Oh, and yes... I'm this much fun at parties too... that's why I either avoid the party entirely or will just hang out with a friend or two in the corner until it's time to leave. It's pretty easy to see how AvPD can lead to a depressive state (though I haven't been what I consider depressed since shortly after I quit the game and got rid of the cheating ex-gf). Depressed people without some exception quality (looks, money, fame, whatever)
I too had the same problem trying to match myself up to aspergers... I fit the "doesn't seem to fit into society" as well as the "very focused on certain ideas" parts of it but lacked the motor skill problems (I played football and baseball growing up, paint models and miniatures, etc) and stuff like that. As for your gaming persona, I too have an online persona (be it in a game, on messengers, etc) that people find attractive. I'm "protected" from people by sitting behind the monitor and since I'm just talking to my "computer," I'm more likely to act like my real self instead of what a lot of people who run into me in real life get to see. Oddly enough, though I have relatively few RL female friends (ok, basically none at the moment), the majority of my online friends are female. It's also worth noting that most of them are married or in very serious relationships (perhaps I'm more open with them because I don't feel threatened by them since they're already committed to someone else? I know they appreciate being able to talk to a guy who is in touch with themselves and is able to explain to them why their husband does what he does as well (another classic sign of AvPD is overanalyzing situations so I tend to understand exactly why people do the things they do and pick up on small cues that others miss). However, (single) women feeling comfortable talking to you as a confidant might be a kiss of death if you wish to pursue a love relationship with them (after all, they wouldn't want to risk losing your friendship)).
Anyway, now that I'm done nesting asides, here are some links I've found handy.
Although more focused on social anxiety, I also found Painfully Shy by Barbara and Gregory Markway (ISBN 0-312-31623-2) to be pretty good. One of the authors suffers from social anxiety and, thus, has a pretty intimate grasp on it. It also has a lot of good suggestions at finding ways to overcome it so you can at least be functional.
Talking about avoidant personality is one of the few things I'm not too shy about. My readings over the last half a year show that avoidants tend to be misdiagnosed frequently and tend to be treated for side effects rather than their primary problem. A lot of shrinks don't seem to realize it exists and will classify someone with social phobia, agoraphobia, etc. Until finding out about it, I often wondered if I didn't have Asperger's prior to learning about AvPD. By talking about it, I help raise my own awareness of it and it helps me understand why I do the things I do so I can try to find ways to correct my behavior. The sooner someone tries to correct the thought processes that cause it, the easier it is to overcome it. I've read the life stories of a lot of people in their 40s and 50s who have ended up on disability and are completely unable to leave their house, even for groceries, because they've become completely obsessed with the notion that everyone in the world is overtly or covertly critical of them.
It goes back further than the situation with my dad... even back in high school, I would avoid asking girls out and whatnot because of the fear of rejection. In college, I generally avoided parties and whatnot unless I knew people who were going to be there and then I'd pretty much strictly stick around the people that I knew. I often subconsciously test people to see if they're really trustworthy before I'll really consider attempting to have a friendship with them. I can trace the first manifestation all the way back to the 3rd grade so it really was present before the situation with my dad. That said, the situation I'm in definitely has forced me to withdraw more and in the process, made it even harder to try to do something different. The extent that the women in two of my relationships have went out of their way to do things to hurt me (and I'd call cheating on me with my "friends" deliberately trying to hurt me) has made my innate fear of approaching a woman even greater. Add in that I've been unemployed for the last 8 months (I got sick of constantly being put down at work not to mention only getting 2 raises in 10 years and having my vacation time taken away because they knew that I was stuck there) and my financial situation has languished to the point where I don't feel worthy of even trying to find someone anymore (though, not being constantly put down has made me feel better about myself).
Oh, and as typical for advoidant types, I haven't been to a shrink for formal diagnosis (I'm a hunter and the last thing I want to do is lose my right to own a gun when they catch wind about me having been depressed before, I don't trust psychologists and believe they have more of a motive to keep you where you are than to truly try to cure you, I don't want to be put on medications after seeing what they've done to friends, etc). I've done a ton of study since first hearing about AvPD and I finally feel like something describes me perfectly rather than just bits and pieces from other things. I've also prescribed myself a bit of a treatment plan but unlike a fear of heights, it's harder to plan a route of exposure therapy/desensitization since it is a dynamic, rather than a static fear. I do try to do other things like positive reinforcement, keeping a journal of things that I want to avoid so I can rationalize why I shouldn't once I'm out of the situation, etc... It has helped some but ultimately, I'm constrained by my situation. I've also tried to spend some of my time off fixing up stuff around the house (though I lack the funds to do the major stuff I want to do) and that has helped me feel like I'm making some kind of progress too. Ultimately, nagging at me, though, is the likelihood that I'll probably never meet anyone, have a family of my own, etc and that just puts more pressure on me to not screw up when I find someone I'd like to get to know better (meaning that I'm more likely to avoid talking to her all together so I don't have another catastrophic failure).
I got addicted (or call it whatever you want) to EQ... I was absolutely in a depressive state due to a variety of factors (I take care of my Dad and have spent my entire 20s basically stuck in/around the house with him, dated four girls over the course of that 10 year span(two of which went out of their way to mentally abuse me further), had to quit college to take care of my dad, was stuck in the same crappy job with no ability to get something else that was compatible with my situation, etc). To top it off, I have something called Avoidant Personality Disorder, which is a type of social anxiety disorder that basically manifests itself with me avoiding to do things, rather than do them and face "certain" rejection.
I started EQ just to play with my best friend here and there... after a couple months, I was approached about being an officer in my guild and shortly thereafter, became a raid leader. At that point, I had a dedication to the game and my guild... to top it off, I was completely accepted and thus didn't have to worry about facing the rejection of my peers. The game was a reality (though separate, I never confused the game and real life) for me that allowed me to relax and not be on guard all the time. Soon, I ended up as the guild leader and another officer and I split raid leadership duties. However, as guild leader and co-raid leader, I felt an even larger obligation to be on and helping out. That avoidant part inside me didn't want to let someone down or they might get mad at me (and thus, reject me). Factor in a regular series of personal accomplishments, group accomplishments, raid accomplishments and guild accomplishments and I was getting a regular high from the game.
I ended up playing between 8-14 hours a day and if I wasn't at work or sleeping, I was at least nearby in case something came up that needed my attention. Eventually, I started burning out and felt a need to leave the game because I knew it was taking a negative toll on my life. I couldn't quit, however, because my (then) gf and I had met in the game and we were living on separate coasts so the game was our way of spending time together every day in between flying back and forth. Not long after that, my co-raid leader realized he was in a similar situation to me and wanted to start a family so he quit. When he did, that increased my burden even more. I had to be on all the time, I had to schedule my life around a 3 night/week raid schedule (plus an "optional" 4th night for people wanting to work on their epics... I say optional because it was optional for everyone but me basically. The few times I didn't attend, I was begged and nagged, sometimes for up to a week prior to make sure I was there to help someone in particular out). Along the way, my gf and I broke up (she had a lot of mental problems herself... she left me for another one of our officers, switched servers and joined a hardcore raid guild where it was 6 nights a week mandatory and basically ignored her 4 year old daughter for the next year). With that, my main reason for staying was essentially gone but I still felt an obligation to everyone and was still enjoying the highs from my accomplishments. A few months later, my gf and I got back together and eventually she moved back to my server... at which point, her drama began all over again).
My officers hated my gf for what she had done to us, and especially me, over the course of the prior year... Our biggest problem as a guild was that the hardcore guilds would burn their people out and then proceed to bribe my guild members to leave so they (the hardcores) could sustain their pace rather than looking at self-sustainability. I had a fallout with the officers one night over yet another person leaving over a bribe after getting the last of what he wanted from us. They blamed me when in reality, he was just out to use us. After much fighting over it, I left the guild with my gf and we set out to start a new guild that wouldn't
This reminds me of TSR/WOTC publishing the first 250 issues of Dragon magazine back in 1999. I remember a lot of discussion over why things like ads and whatnot were included. A WOTC rep at the time (perhaps Ryan Dancey?) stated that the reason why the magazines were fully converted to PDF and they didn't strip anything out was because they had the right to republish their work in whole but didn't necessarily have the right to republish freelance content in a different publication. When Dragon was first published in 1976, nobody on either side of the contract ever even considered the idea that in the future, it would be completely trivial and cheap to distribute works in an ala carte type fashion. The solution to getting an article was to just procure a backissue of the magazine.
Anyway... WOTC felt that they were simply reproducing the content of the magazine, albeit on a new medium, and as long as it was an identical reproduction, they were within their rights. This court ruling seems to agree with that. Some people were happy about it and some grumbled.
Somewhat offtopic but related since it involves a potential copyright grab by the same company in the same timeframe...
More disturbing to me at the time, was Ryan Dancey going around implying that all unique work (such as campaign settings, character classes, spells, etc created by you in your home and for your friends) used in [A]D&D games at the time was derivative of [A]D&D and thus, at least in part, controlled and/or owned by TSR/WOTC. I promptly pulled all of the info on the setting I created off my website and have never put it back up since. Ignoring that I didn't care for the rule changes of D&D3 to begin with, I didn't trust the motives of WOTC when they came out with the D20 license and the market pretty much lost me completely in terms of buying new material. I'm still working on collecting some rare AD&D1/2 stuff that I don't have but I haven't bought a new book from TSR since somewhere around 1999/2000. I also stopped development on a suite of tools I was making to make things easier for DMs. The flamewars between Dancey and various community members in rec.games.frp.dnd at the time (hey seebs, if you read this) made the recent week-long flamewar over the GPL3 on LKML look rather tame.
That's judgments... what about settlements, including sealed settlements? And of course, a settlement doesn't necessarily mean the doctor was guilty of malpractice, possibly just that it was cheaper to settle than it would be to go to trial.
We had to take m68k assembly as part of my degree program. The class was taught by a professor who had just come back from spending the summer in India. Since I already knew x86 assembly, I was able to grasp the concepts fairly easily since I had a pretty good idea of what we were talking about to start with. A good portion of my class had absolutely no idea what they were being told and it really showed up in the lab portion where people would spend a week trying to write a simple program (perhaps to count from 1 to 10 on a LED by blinking it a corresponding number of times) and would come in with a 20 page program (had to submit a printout of our program for grading) that didn't work at all in comparison to my 2 page program.
The guy was a smart guy but he just couldn't efficiently pass that knowledge on to the inexperienced in the class. I remember one time when he spent more than a minute trying to get out the word "mailbox" as an analogy when we were talking about registers. Being freshly back from India had rethickened his accent as well, making it harder for him to enunciate(if you know someone who grew up somewhere with a distinct accent (like the south) and then lost it, try talking to them after they spend some time back home... you'll notice that they regained a good portion of their accent, especially immediately after returning). The guy definitely wasn't an idiot or inferior, he simply didn't have the ability to communicate in his non-native language to students to convey his understanding. That's not racism (superiority of one race over another), it's simply reality. He probably would have been a great teacher to a class full of people who's language he natively spoke.
who is prone to violence, kids who play games all the time, ( develop problem solving skills, interpersonal relationships on the net, team play etc.. ) or kids who play out side all the time. ( shooting birds, killing cats, stealing cars for joy rides )
Because every kid who plays video games is playing multiplayer tetris while every kid who goes outside is a juvenile criminal. There are video game players who will end up as serial killers and there are kids who go outside to play who will become peace loving hippies. Everything influences people in different ways. Despite having the same parents, my sister and I are polar opposites. You might be able to go to a dance club and have a good time, I go to a club and I start getting extremely irritated and will eventually become agitated to the point that I'll want to break something if I'm prevented from leaving.
I don't believe games (or playing outside) can turn someone to become a violent criminal, however either event can bring out suppressed traits in people. My ex-gf was fine before she started playing EQ but got to the point where she was ignoring her 4 year old daughter all the time to play the game, it caused all kinds of tension in our relationship even though I was hooked on EQ too, etc. It took someone who was normally a caring and responsible person and turned her into a royal bitch. Sure, it wasn't necessarily EQ, something else would have done the same thing if she let it control her that way. But the stimulus did cause a change in her personality (and in my own too... EQ free for 13 months now and starting to get my life back on track). Playing shooter type games reduces my stress levels. Listening to thrash metal does as well (despite being something else a lot of people will classify as innately violent). Neither is a negative trigger for me but they can be for some people. But that's just it, anything (no matter how seemingly innocuous) can be a trigger for someone. I challenge you to prove that anything can be 100% guaranteed to not trigger some type of negativity in 100% of people.
Is that so difficult in the USA? I thought that that was the country of free enterprise where everything is decided by commerce and not by unions?
Here in Europe, the take down of the postal system is proceeding very smoothly: first, competition to the postal system has been allowed. Result is that many small competitors spring up that are in for the fast money and offer rates below the national postal company. They deliver only business mail, usually twice a week.
Result is that the national postal company gets into trouble and needs to fire lots of employees. Unions protest but a detailed investigation by an independent party reveals that indeed the reduced revenue from competition and the internet warrants the layoffs.
Next, many of the small competitors can go belly-up because business is decreasing for them too.
Postal offices? Most of them have already been closed down. You find a small desk in a corner of the bookstore or supermarket instead.
Such a move should be possible in the USA as well.
Unions have been steadily declining since the introduction of safety and labor laws in the US. The most entrenched unions these days belong to government employees. They're almost entirely unionized. Teachers, administrators, pencil pushers, highway guys, postal workers, etc. Why? Because they can almost limitlessly leech off the employer (the federal government isn't going out of business any time soon even though we're witnessing the collapse of the other big union industry (automobiles)). The unions will make it virtually impossible to downsize the post office. They'll have work stoppages, "lose" and delay mail, etc and they know people need to get the mail to pay their bills, get their retirement checks, etc so the people will generally support them lest the bleeding hearts come out and start crying about how we'll be starving their children, stealing their pensions, etc if we downsize.
Also, while I understand not every union is like this, there are a lot of unions out there who are associated with organized crime or will employ similar tactics. They harass you and your children outside your home, form picket lines at the businesses of (especially non-union) competitors (such as USPS employees calling in sick and then standing outside of FedEx trying to block people from getting in), some will resort to vandalism, etc. I see a lot of construction union people protesting non-union contractors working on jobs like renovating a department store (harassing both the workers there and anyone who passes by out on the street). My best friend is in a skilled trade union and you would be amazed by the amount of brainwashing that they do on their members. Hell, the boss is stealing from the pension fund and yet nobody has had the balls to directly confront him on it. They're brushed off and distracted. My friend was going to say something but his union buddies convinced him to just keep his mouth shut or the guy in charge of finding work would stop being able to find work for him.
In the US, the post office is a de jure monopoly. The Constitution directly charges the federal government "To establish Post Offices and post roads." As such, competitors (DHL, UPS, FedEx, etc) are allowed to handle shipping but the US government (and specifically the postal arm) claims exclusive jurisdiction to mail. Your mailbox is declared federal property and only postal employees, you and anyone you directly give permission to are allowed to touch the contents of it. Newspapers and that sort of thing (which are delivered by private carriers) generally will attach another box onto the pole your mailbox is on to deliver their goods since they can't just stuff it in your mailbox.
I'd LOVE to see the USPS to get downsized. They're bloated, inefficient and wasteful. There's something wrong when the cost of a stamp goes up every 2 years but the price of garbage collection has remained flat for 25 years here (my provider specifically, not a municipal program) despite increasing costs of landfill disposal, recycling and fuel.
If they didn't deliver advertisements, they would only need to deliver mail once or twice a week. nobody uses regular mail for quick correspondences anymore. There is no need to deliver 6 days a week.
Absolutely correct... now, convince the union which controls the employees of the nation's second largest employer that you're going to need to eliminate more than half of their jobs since you're going down to 1 day a week. You'll, of course, still need to staff and manage the actual post office, distribution/sorting centers and transport mail between centers/offices but you'll cut down from 5 deliverers to 1. You could also cut down the transport between offices but some bills still can't be paid over the internet so I think people would prefer that their mail actually moves. What is now a 3 day trip might take 3 weeks if we cut back interoffice transport. Nevermind Granny or poor people who can't afford computers; To hell with them for being luddites.
Over time, times every person checking mail in the country, yeah, it does come to a lot. Which without advertisements would be less since you wouldn't need to get regular mail any more. see previous point.
Ever stop to think that it is the junk mail which makes up a core foundation of the post office's income? I've gone from mailing out 9 bills a month to mailing out 2, so they're definitely getting less money from me. However, their infrastructure costs aren't going down any time soon (nor will they go down if the union has anything to say about it). You can let advertisers pay that cost or you can raise taxes on every individual to support an ad-free mail system that they're still going to retire. Me? I'd rather keep paying the $10 or so a year I pay right now than pay an additional chunk of money in taxation.
Yeah, if you have nearby neighbors, the smoke will settle on their property until your chimney heats up. oh and don't forget of all the poisonous carcenigens you are putting in the air from the ink and paper processing materials.
Yeah... because most of of my neighbors burn fuel oil... it is so much healthier for everyone. Not to mention people using coal and putting trace amounts radioactive material up in the air. How do you recommend heating a home in NY six months a year in a way that won't have any negative impact whatsoever? I use a handful of paper once every few days when I accidentally let the fire burn out. Ooooh, scary.
That is completly false. While cheap, mass spammer do pay for the privilidge. Do you think the major providers don't know when someone sends 100K of emails...in fact you can pay them to be able to do that.
Ever hear of a botnet? If you have 20,000 machines each sending 5 mails, its a lot harder to track down. The boxes most likely to be sending out 100k at a time are corporate machines which have been hijacked and generally, their providers don't care too much what they do with their T3/OC line since they're selling connectivity/bandwidth not user services. The business has to employ someone to maintain that server to make sure it stays secure and to notice when it is spewing out 100k mails at a time. There are expenses for everyone out there running a mail server (employees, hardware failure, processing expansion for filtering, disk expansion, etc). If you have a website with a poorly laid out form (pick a random PHP project), you can end up with that form allowing people to send out spam (and good luck if you're the "IT guy" in a small business running the site because you're the one who knows why the computer won't turn on when the monitor is unplugged). Sending spam is MASSIVELY cheaper in comparison to junk mail. "Want to email a million addresses? Sure, we can do that for you for $25." "Want to junk mail a million mailboxes? Sure, that'll be $130,000." The spammer bears almost none of the cost associated with their endeavor, it is all passed on to the recipients and intermediaries so there is no incentive to carefully target their adv
I drive a 98 Ranger XLT with a 2.5L engine (2 wheel drive). 22 mpg has been my long term average since I bought the vehicle 9 years ago next month. While not a scientific measurement, a couple weeks ago, I towed my loaded trailer 80 miles plus drove another 80 miles or so before topping off. The result was just under 21 mpg. I've towed it several other times recently (though used up a full tank before refilling, most of which wasn't towing) and still got in the 21 mpg range. When I'm towing, I drive less aggressively (I won't pass someone unless I must, I accelerate slower, I try staying in the highest gear for as long as possible, decelerate slower coming to stops, etc). You can believe me or not, its your choice.
All the trees that go into making the paper, all the garbage that it produces, and all the lost productivity because of Junk Mail far outweigh the little bit of hard drive space and bandwidth email providers have to deal with.
You do realize that generally paper comes from young trees that are specifically grown, harvested and replanted for their pulp right? We aren't exactly clearcutting the rain forest for paper. Almost the entirety of the junk mail garbage is recyclable and biodegradable. I spend almost no productivity on junk mail in comparison to what I spend on spam.
Click delete a few times and the Spam mail is gone forever. Stop looking at porn and using your email for all sorts of "Free Trials" and the spam will be cut down tremendously.
Just "click delete a few times?" 100 times a day is "just a few times?" I have spamassassin categorizing my mail into "almost-certainly-spam", "probably-spam" and then passing the rest onto my regular filters. Every couple days, I scan through the two spam folders to make sure I'm not getting false positives. There are a couple people occasionally on linux-kernel which come up bayes00 but SA tags as spam for using a mail server with conflicting reverse DNS entries. One of the blacklist services might classify a server as a spammy bumping messages from someone into the "probably-spam" level. Most are obviously spam but it takes 5 minutes a day to scan through everything to make sure it is legitimately spam and classifying it as such (so that SA can process a guaranteed spam list to pick up tokens). Even with spamassassin and filtering, I get 5-6 spams a day that sneak through and get tossed into my regular mail folders that I need to deal with directly. As for why I get spams, my address has been harvested off linux-kernel, gnome mailing lists, USENET posts from a decade ago, etc. I had a couple universal throwaway addresses that I used for site registrations, but these days, I'll register with something site specific so I can see who is leaking my data (ie, slashdot07@mydomain.net).
In comparison, I look at my 3-4 pieces of mail on the way into the house and by the time I walk through my front door, it is sorted and the junk mail goes into the burn box. That's much closer to your "click delete a few times."
Slashdot Mirror
When all you focus on is achieving a single goal, you tend to get tunnel vision and you begin to miss more tangential things. The primary difference between the letter of the GPL2 and the letter of the GPL3 is purely ideological. It's RMS trying to leverage the existing GNU code base, as well as the code of the true believers, to force other people to adopt his new license and his new ideology. The fact that a FSF (sorry, a FSFLA "sister organization" member) zealot spent two weeks heckling lkml is an example of that. The fact that FSFers would rather have people use proprietary software than a Tivo is another example that they are so caught up in their dogma, they can't see reality. Again, RMS hasn't been able to tell the gcc folks what they're supposed to license certain things under despite already mandating that they immediately change licenses. That shows how little he's thought about the ramifications and how much the goal means to him regardless.
Pick any topic zealots flock to... the NRA, evangelists, atheists, pro-lifers, pro-choicers, war protesters, etc. Almost all of them are single issue people. Nothing but their one true cause matters to them. Who cares about the Patriot Act, out of control spending and Guantanamo Bay? The guy didn't make any new gun laws so he's alright by me. Your candidate will create world peace, elimination the national debt and put a chicken in every pot but wants to make it so I can't own a bazooka? The guy is villainous and just wants to take away our rights. After dealing with a lot of FSF zealots since the pot got stirred on lkml, I see those FSFers as no better than any other nut case. Granted, I may use their old license but I'll be damned if I'm going to carry the banner to the point everyone deserves a M1A1 at home just because their leader said only extremes are enough.
They're exactly as incompatible as any other sets of code with two licenses. This is like saying that GPLv2 and the MPL are incompatible - yea, they are, and the community has been coping with that sort of problem for years. And yet you keep missing the point... perhaps willfully. The MPL was never compatible with the GPL2. It didn't have 15 years of ties to code which are suddenly going to be broken for political reasons rather than technical ones. A GPL2 app that was fine two weeks ago is now in violation of the GPL3 if you upgrade a dependency unless you jump through hoops, making sure that you link only to GPL2+ sources, perhaps even bringing a whole new level of DLL-hell as every GPL2 application has to make sure that forked GPL2+ libraries are present. I know... it's the stick part of the GPL3: trying to leverage existing code people depend on to force them into a license they probably disagree with if they aren't changing on their own. IMO, it's completely and utterly unethical.
The GPL3's cure is worse than the poison AFAIC. That people refuse to acknowledge the problems with the GPL3 (or instead want to shove them off as everyone else's problems if they do admit there is something going on there) goes to show that it is not the GPL2only people who misunderstand the GPL3. Who needs Microsoft to spread false fear, uncertainty and doubt when the FSF created it's own valid FUD by dividing the community with an incompatible license?
Just to be completely clear: The GPLv3 does not cause any compatibility issue for different programs working together. Your car analogy is nonsensical, because the GNU code and the Linux kernel can happily be under different licenses and still work together fine.
Working together, no... but being combined, yes. The Linux kernel contains a copy of gunzip, for example. Once gzip goes GPL3, new versions are incompatible with being able to be put in Linux so the Linux developers are going to have to take over maintenance of any security problems which come up. The fun part? To get a patch into a GNU project, you need to hand the FSF the copyright to your patch... and the FSF is very likely to only license patches under the same license as the project they are part of and derivative of. There has been a thread on the gcc mailing list about how RMS has given them a date of July 31st to release gcc 4.2.1 as GPL2+ and after that, EVERYTHING is going GPL3+, including any further patches to 4.2.1. The best part is that it HAS to be moved to GPL3 even though they don't know how they want to license stuff like libgcc.
From July 31st on, any patches to gcc from a non-GPL2+ specific source have the ability to taint the source of your gcc to GPL3+. If someone develops a patch to fix miscompiled code against 4.2.2, it is incompatible with 4.2.1 even though it is the exact same code base. Because of that, the gcc steering committee is trying to decide whether or not to EOL all previous versions of gcc even though 4.3 isn't going to be ready any time soon. Now... sure, you can develop your own patches to keep the compiler GPL2, but the minute you start looking over the GPL3 code base, you're tempting yourself to violate licenses and once you become a GPL3 developer, it is hard to be a GPL2 developer lest you risk tainting the code by inadvertently copying over some GPL3 code. The licensing issues are a nightmare, especially because such an important project is having a license changed rammed through in a two week time frame for political reasons instead of technical ones.
However, the result is... yes, GPL2 and GPL3 programs can run side by side on the same box and even be shipped on the same CD/DVD. Outside of that though, they are totally incompatible and that drives a wedge into the community.
This sounds like unsubstantiated FUD. The GPLv3 doesn't force anyone into a political ideology anymore than GPLv2 did. If you have some specific, practical problem with a specific part of the GPLv3 then we can have a reasoned discussion, but your comments are as vague and non-specific as possible.
It most certainly does... if it didn't, there wouldn't be added restrictions to say what you can do with GPL3 software. The GPL2 was all about keeping the source code open, do what you want as long as the changes are available. The GPL3 is much more like a EULA where it dictates where the code can be used. Through the Tivoization clause, it bans use in embedded medical devices, for example.
Just because you don't like having the GNU religion criticized doesn't mean there aren't valid complaints. Throwing the FUD banner out there is just sticking your head in the ground claiming you don't want to hear me because maybe there are problems with incompatibility between GPL2 and GPL3 and that the GPL3's added restrictions are a double edged sword that make it a worse license for a lot of people. The FSF and their followers have absolutely refused to budge on the Tivoization clause though regardless of how much discussion there was about it prior to the official release of the GPL3. To claim it isn't a valid criticism now, or that I'm not being specific enough when I've specifically given my problems with the GPL3 being anti-tivoization and incompatibility with GPL2, reminds me Martin Luther and the Catholic Church. Far easier to excommunicate a supporter who doesn't like the way the church is heading than
RMS and Linus built a car together. RMS supplied the frame, body, seats and gauges. Linus supplied the engine. One day, RMS decided that, while he liked Linus' engine, he didn't like the fact that other people could buy a RMSLinus car, take the engine out and put it in their car. RMS decided that he would no longer sell a frame with engine mounts that would fit Linus' engine. Oh, sure, Linus is free to change his engine so that it will fit the new mounts but that means that other people can no longer use Linus' engine. Linus doesn't care who uses his engine as long as they tell him about any customizations they made, however, he's now stuck building an engine with no car to put it in unless he decides to start making his own frame, doors, etc. That the new frame allows you to use a few new accessories like a winch that you couldn't use before, doesn't mean nobody has a problem now. For one, RMS's car has an engine that can barely turn over, much less run the car. Linus can no longer make new cars unless someone comes along to make a frame for him again. Meanwhile, Microsoft is coming out with a shiny new car that badly needs some tuning but at least you can actually buy it. Boy, RMS automotive really showed everyone else.
As for the ideological disagreement, what exactly is the problem that you have? Is the "installation instructions" clause really that big a deal? I mean... even Linus has said he would consider moving to GPLv3 if there was some technical advantage to doing so. Does that mean everyone around here will start supporting the Patriot Act if it means we catch a terrorist or two? "Hey, I completely disagree with this on moral grounds but, eh, you caught a terrorist so I'm behind you now." I don't care how people use my software... the whole point of releasing it was to let others use it. All that I ask is that if you want to use it, you keep any modifications you make open. As long as you do that, lock it up and do whatever you want... For me, the GPL2 was a way to protect my interests as the author. I could pretty much care less about what that means for the user. The GPL3 is less about using software how you want to, as long as you keep the source open, and more a means of forcing developers into a political ideology.
GPL4: Republicans are evil and want to take your rights. By agreeing to the terms of this license, you guarantee that you will never restrict the rights of citizens in any way.
GPL5: In order to make sure users are truly free, you agree to support socialized health care, government funded housing for all, etc.
My primary issue with the GPL3 is that it is deliberately incompatible with the GPL2. That wedge divides us into three camps instead of two now: BSDers, Open Sourcers and Free Softwarers. The latter two can borrow from the first at will but are now incompatible with borrowing from each other like they have for the last 15 years. Toss in that the FSF knows that we (open source guys) rely on many of their projects and they are trying to use that to leverage us into switching to a license we disagree with. Either we compromise our morality to match the FSF's morality or else we have to fork or recreate the works we've relied on in the past. Divided, we don't stand a chance at keeping up with companies who have a singular mission and already provide a vertical solution. That wasn't the making of the Open Source guys, it was entirely the wish of the FSF. The best part is many of the FSF zealots run around screaming it is the Open Source guys fault for not blindly trusting a third party to determine the future licensing of our software. The FSF are acting like the Jehovahs (or insert any proselytizer of your choice... they just happen to be the ones who annoyed me for three months before I got fed up and scared them off) who come over every week to try to get you to convert but just end up pissing you off and ensuring you won't want anything to do with them.
But... all of these things are way overblown as legitimate problems. For end users, the GPLv3 is strictly an improvement. For developers who don't intend to violate the GPLv3 by trying remove freedoms from end users, the GPLv3 is also an obvious improvement. I'm a GPL2 only developer who doesn't even distribute binaries of my own work... but the GPL3 is a problem for me because it is incompatible with GPL2 code. As I said, the FSF is shooting its foot off to try to kill a fly. I haven't read the LGPL3 but depending on its wording (I'm told it's GPL3 with exceptions), linking to glibc and gtk may now be a problem for my applications. If that's the case, it is a major, major problem and it's not because I'm Satan trying to harm my end users. I consider that the opposite of an improvement for both my users (who may now have to have multiple forked versions of libraries around for every program) as well as for me (because I either have to rely on someone else to maintain a compatible fork or do it myself).
The only people who have room for legitimate complaint are device manufacturers with regulatory burdens, but laws requiring them to distribute their software in a manner that cannot be modified do innately conflict with the goal of the GPL. Or people like me who the FSF is trying to strong-arm into a morality that I disagree with even though I distribute neither hardware nor binaries. As I've said before, my work is utterly meaningless on any level (I've tracked about 1000 downloads in 9 years) so I don't matter so much in the big picture, but there are more significant projects that will matter.
Because the FDA says you can't sell a heart monitor that someone can change the software on without FDA approval? That doesn't sound much like a "consumer device" to me.
From the GPL3 section 6:
A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.
And here's the problem with an overly verbose legal document. A heart monitor is obviously not a consumer device as far as common language goes... but the GPL3 paints us into a corner
Is it normally used for personal, family or household purposes? It is arguable that medical use is personal use, especially if I'm using the product at home in a hospice situation (or how about other medical devices like a diabetes meter (pretty common these days for non-critical patients), electric wheelchairs (again, fairly standard home use), tube feeder, respirator, etc). The GPL3 then proclaims that "A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product." Therefore, even if it is 99% likely that the heart monitor will be used in a hospital, it has no bearing on whether or not it is a consumer device.
You can wave your hand and say "these aren't the consumer devices that you are looking for" but will legal counsel do that when the executives in charge of embedded companies need to decide whether to use Linux, Hurd, BSD, WinCE, QNX or whatever? Potential liability means potential costs and those executives are usually going to go with the safest route. That means staying away from GPL3 software even if buying QNX costs more up front. That means fewer people working on, and contributing back to, open source software and more users being locked into proprietary devices.
In an effort to split hairs, the GPL3 is overly verbose and complicated. The more specific you get, the more you open yourself up to wiggle room to get around the intent of your license. The "flaw" in the GPL2, from what I believe to be the FSF's position, is that it specifically claimed that "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." It specifically doesn't cover execution, replacement of binaries existing hardware, etc because it specifically said that everything else is outside the scope of the license. We already know what the solution is to defeat the anti-tivoization clause - Tivo will own the boxes and rent them to you instead. Since they own them, you have no right to modify them. In fact, since they own them, they aren't distributing the binaries so they don't even need to release the source code (just as your workplace doesn't need to give you the source to the GPL binaries on your workstation).
The actual FCC rules are a bit more complicated than that, but - in any case - this has been clearly solved by the binary firmware solution that's used in many wireless cards today. The GPLv3 doesn't interfere with that at all.
A lot of companies use those binary blobs because they have other restrictions from letting them release them as open source (such as patents on graphics technology). A lot of the more FSF minded people alre
There are all kinds of embedded devices which can't use GPL3 code because they can't create the device and still adhere to the terms of the GPL forcing them to make it so users can tamper with the code that would violate their government licensing mandates (good luck selling a medical device without FDA approval). The GPL3 is specifically disallowing itself in use of hundreds of potential devices that haven't yet made it to market. Instead, those companies will have to choose GPL2 software (which they may need to fork and maintain themselves), BSD software or something completely proprietary. The Tivo fly landed on the FSF's foot and they shot the whole foot off to try to kill the fly.
When polled about abortion(at least in the US), a majority of people say that it is the prerogative of the woman. However, when asked if late term abortions should be legal, a majority say they should be banned unless continuing the pregnancy would jeopardize the life of the mother. The point being. just because you believe in something doesn't mean that you think that something shouldn't have limits placed on it. Linus likes the GPL2 because it meant his source could be open and would have to stay open... he didn't license it under the GPL2 because he cared about dogma about the "four freedoms" (political ideals) or anything like that, he did it because the terms of the license suited HIS needs (and it was the license he used, not the entirety of the FSF dogma). By the same token, being pro-choice doesn't mean you have to accept the entire platform of the NOW (or pro-life meaning you have to worship the Pope).
The GPL2 terms have absolutely NO terms allowing the code to be licensed under another future version of the GPL. I challenge you to read the terms and conditions of the license and find that in there. What it does say, under suggestions on how to use the license (specifically outside of the terms of the license), is
So... unless the author specifically includes the right to use future versions of the license, the right doesn't exist.
The modification to the COPYING file in Linux adds the following:
There are no new restrictions added, Linus was simply clarifying the legal opinion he received regarding the usage of the license (ie, that it doesn't cover the execution of programs). Thus, it was a clarification of Linus' opinion regarding the usage of, not a modification of, the GPL2 license.
PS - had to edit out a few pieces of punctuation in the quotes due to the stupid lameness filter
Let us not forget this all came about because the FSF zealots were trolling lkml about the GPL3 to begin with... Linus didn't exactly go out of his way to bash RMS, the FSF and their followers out of the blue. There was a thread with hundreds of posts started by someone else and FSF fanatics who have contributed nothing to the kernel started trolling. I was involved with the thread off list (since I'm not a kernel dev and I felt it would be inappropriate for me to spout off what I think the kernel devs should do with their code) and I walked away with a severe distaste for the FSF and their concept of "free software." Not satisfied with that, the primary FSF zealot in the thread started another thread with the goal of trying to make Linux dual-licensed so projects like the Hurd could rip code of out Linux since the GPL2 and 3 are incompatible.
Linus has every right to be upset that an organization he explicitly doesn't trust to control the license of his software is badgering him to adopt their new license. When repeatedly told that he doesn't like the new license, they just badger him more to try to convert him (to further their own projects). I get along with most Catholics fine but the Jehovahs, who used to come to my house every Saturday morning so they could try to convert me, can go fsck themselves. All they did was ensure that I saw them as fanatics and thus would never want to associate with them.
As for Linus being egotistical and petty, RMS is no better... and it is RMS' own ego which caused him to divide the FOSS community with the GPL3 by making it incompatible with the GPL2, be presumptive enough that everyone releases GPL2 software for the same reason he does (and further try to leverage the GNU code base to get GPL2only authors to convert their license to his new one even if they disagree with it, invite the PHP worry and open the FOSS community to whole new levels of FUD.
I still play my Wii at least 10 hours a week (got it about a week after launch). I'd play more, but my limiting factor is that I'm currently unemployed so I can't go out and buy game after game (I currently have 5, all of which have at least some, if not a lot, of replayability). Every time I go to a relative's house, they're still begging me to bring my Wii so they can bowl (and some of them have dozens and dozens of rounds under their belt). There are a couple games out there that I still want to get and there is at least one more on the near horizon that I'd like to try (Metroid Prime Hunters is set for next month... I haven't played Metroid since the original, so I'd like so see where things are now).
In a way, your post reminds me of the hardcore raiders back when I was playing EQ. They'd burn through content as fast as possible and then spend the next 3-5 months bitching that there wasn't anything to do. Meanwhile, I played just as much as they did but spent more of my time in the depths of EQ doing quests, exploring, etc that they never did because it wasn't part of the raid game (and thus didn't matter and might as well not exist). So, rather than fix current content, the pressure was always on to come out with another raid oriented expansion to keep the people who raid 40 hours a week happy. The game became mostly about raiding at that point. Keep raiding to keep up, burn out your guild, replace them with people from the next level down raid guild, rinse and repeat until most raiders are burned out and gone and most casuals are sick of being left behind... and where does the population of EQ stand today because of the decisions SOE made due to the pressure from the hardcores that rushed through a quarter of the content and ignored the rest? mmogchart data seems kinda stale (last EQ numbers are a year old) and it shows that almost 2/3rds of the peak number of subscribers have left.
Perhaps the problem is that you aren't the demographic Nintendo is trying to capture with the Wii... I'm thoroughly happy with mine (and so are all of my family members who haven't played a game since pacman on the Atari, if ever). I'm happy with the direction things seem to be going and the pace isn't too bad for me. Then again, maybe I am the demographic they are targeting (30 year old retiree from hardcore gaming who still wants to sit down an hour or two a night to play a game, especially if it means playing with pretty much anyone of my friends or family).
because for a typical 300W desktop 24/7 system you probably would be paying $100/month, more than a thousand a year.
I call BS... my desktop is dual athlon 1800MP with 5 hard drives (500 watt ps)and I've also got a K6II/450 with 2 drives that acts as my personal server. Both are on 24/7. Throw in a laptop, 2 tvs (one on 12 hours a day, the other 24 hours a day for my dad), 2 waterbeds, electric water heater, 10 year old fridge, AC, etc. I used 907 kWh last month for a total of $128.64 (about 14.2 cents a kWh with all taxes, surcharges and fees). Just because my ps is rated at 500 watts doesn't mean it constantly draws that much. Even if it did, 0.3kW*24h*30d = 216 kWh/month or $30.67 a month for your hypothetical 300w desktop. You'd have to be paying over 40 cents a kWh for it to even be plausible for one computer to cost $100/month.
Not to sound like I'm patronizing, but I can tell you one thing that you have to offer a potential mate: you seem to be a thoughtful person. It's a pretty rare trait. For all I know you're really a big-time ass, but based off of what you've written so far, you seem more thoughtful and considerate than anything.
... If taking care of your father is the issue, could you find a caretaker for your father? If the location is the issue, could you possibly relocate yourself, or yourself and your father?
The problem is, while women say they want a thoughtful, considerate guy who can make them laugh, they usually go for the guys with visible symbols: money, looks, etc. Most seem to be content to get the other stuff from their female friends. It has often happened that I will find myself in a situation where a female friend will complain to be about their bf and whatnot, telling me they wish they could have someone more like me, break up with him and then go to the next loser just like him. I end up as the friend that they don't want to risk losing rather than them going "hey, if I want someone just like you, maybe we should consider a relationship."
But you've overcome it before, haven't you? You've dated before, which is pretty big stuff. I've only dated twice (one of which is still ongoing and hopefully will last for life), and was rejected my first time. A relationship is big stuff, and to initiate one takes a lot of effort. Maybe not for the stereotypical frat boy types, but for types like us (I'm presuming we're pretty similar), the entire experience is one of intense nervousness. You've successfully made the moves before. What do you have to lose? Just try, and don't let the outcome dictate your confidence - let the fact that you did it dictate your confidence.
We're not talking about intense nervousness, we're talking pure "fight or flight" response. It can be overcome but it definitely isn't easy. I have to work myself into a near frenzy of confidence to be able to even initiate contact with someone from a dating website. It usually takes a couple of days and in one such instance, I had a friend unintentionally completely collapse my self image within minutes of when I was going to initiate contact. Having hyper-inflated my confidence only to have it collapse put me into a tailspin where I was ready to completely give up and resign myself back into the video game escape permanently. Five days later, I finally managed to say hi to her. Only for her to say "talk to you tomorrow" a couple weeks later and never hear from her again. That's actually a rather positive attempt for me. In working myself up, I generally tell myself the worst they can do is say no... However, I'm almost as afraid that they'll want to continue talking only to end up abusing me like a couple of my exes have (everything from simply cheating on me to intentionally playing sadistic mind games to hurt me). Nothing hurts more than the woman you dated for a couple years that you intend to marry deliberately attempting to psychologically destroy you because it is entertaining.
Have you considered adult education classes, night classes... anything of that sort?
I'm looking at a 40 minute drive each way for classes, not to mention the duration of the class itself. As long as my dad is awake, he'll deliberately undermine any attempt at me improving my situation (be it college, trying to go out on a date, spending time with my friends, etc) even though he's more than capable of being alone as long as there isn't an emergency for a couple hours here or there. By the time he goes to bed, it's really too late to do anything. As for a caretaker, I'm looking at $25/hr through the local HHA agency. I could probably get someone cheaper by hiring directly but that has other problems associated with it. Getting him into a day program requires him to qualify for medicaid (welfare) which limits him to $5000 in assets and $617/mo in income, virtually eliminating our ability to surviv
I'm 30 years old, live "at home" with my parent (I live in the house I grew up in, technically my dad's house even though I do everything around it), don't have a degree, haven't had a job in 8 months and don't have any prospects atm due to the situation with my dad, despite my best attempts to lose weight, I hit a plateau that I can't get under (200 pounds and I'm a nice short 5'6" (most women like their men a little taller than them)), I live in an economically depressed area of NY that most smarter young adults flee from, etc. Basically (and mind you, this is typical of avoidant people), I feel like I don't offer anything that a potential mate would find attractive. It's not that I don't like myself (self esteem), it's that I assume everyone else is going to reject me (self image). Factor in that the self image produces a panic mode when I find someone that I'd like to get to know better (if in person, my right hand usually starts twitching... in all cases, I build up this massive certainty that I will be rejected (or worse, accepted only to be abused because I think they see me as weak) and I simply shut down.) It's easier to avoid putting myself into that situation all together. Ultimately, I'll see someone interesting, avoid going up to talk to her and later end up regretting it and mentally punishing myself for it.
Why is 30 a big deal? Well, for one, every day I get older is a day wasted as far as finding someone to have that family with. Eventually, my fertility will decrease, as will my potential mate's as time goes on. I want to be able to run around and play with my kids but I can already feel the onset of arthritis in my arm and will likely get it in my back since it runs in the family. My Dad had a brain aneurysm at 17 and another at 40 (that resulted in a stroke and some paralysis). His sister had an aneurysm at 16 and another at 41 (resulting in death). That's not to say that I WILL have an aneurysm (though they can be passed genetically), but it does emphasize how young and unexpectedly life can pretty much take everything from you. Nearly all of my goals for my life were thrown askew when my dad had his stroke (I was 21 at the time making my dad 19 and my mom 17 when I was born). I gave up my college education which in turn meant I'm probably going to live a life of meaningless, crappy jobs, which in turn screws up my financial future and opportunity to have the home I want (I'm grateful I have a home, don't get me wrong... but it was my parents' house, not my house), all of which decreases the likelihood of a reasonably smart woman wanting to have a relationship with me, etc. Having a family is basically the one thing I have an opportunity at still.
Oh, and yes... I'm this much fun at parties too... that's why I either avoid the party entirely or will just hang out with a friend or two in the corner until it's time to leave. It's pretty easy to see how AvPD can lead to a depressive state (though I haven't been what I consider depressed since shortly after I quit the game and got rid of the cheating ex-gf). Depressed people without some exception quality (looks, money, fame, whatever)
I too had the same problem trying to match myself up to aspergers... I fit the "doesn't seem to fit into society" as well as the "very focused on certain ideas" parts of it but lacked the motor skill problems (I played football and baseball growing up, paint models and miniatures, etc) and stuff like that. As for your gaming persona, I too have an online persona (be it in a game, on messengers, etc) that people find attractive. I'm "protected" from people by sitting behind the monitor and since I'm just talking to my "computer," I'm more likely to act like my real self instead of what a lot of people who run into me in real life get to see. Oddly enough, though I have relatively few RL female friends (ok, basically none at the moment), the majority of my online friends are female. It's also worth noting that most of them are married or in very serious relationships (perhaps I'm more open with them because I don't feel threatened by them since they're already committed to someone else? I know they appreciate being able to talk to a guy who is in touch with themselves and is able to explain to them why their husband does what he does as well (another classic sign of AvPD is overanalyzing situations so I tend to understand exactly why people do the things they do and pick up on small cues that others miss). However, (single) women feeling comfortable talking to you as a confidant might be a kiss of death if you wish to pursue a love relationship with them (after all, they wouldn't want to risk losing your friendship)). Anyway, now that I'm done nesting asides, here are some links I've found handy.
A more in depth scientific classification of AvPD along with possible causes and a guideline to treatment
A general site with some descriptions of people with AvPD as well as a list of books, an online chat system, etc.
A yahoo support group feel free to lurk and learn
Although more focused on social anxiety, I also found Painfully Shy by Barbara and Gregory Markway (ISBN 0-312-31623-2) to be pretty good. One of the authors suffers from social anxiety and, thus, has a pretty intimate grasp on it. It also has a lot of good suggestions at finding ways to overcome it so you can at least be functional.
Talking about avoidant personality is one of the few things I'm not too shy about. My readings over the last half a year show that avoidants tend to be misdiagnosed frequently and tend to be treated for side effects rather than their primary problem. A lot of shrinks don't seem to realize it exists and will classify someone with social phobia, agoraphobia, etc. Until finding out about it, I often wondered if I didn't have Asperger's prior to learning about AvPD. By talking about it, I help raise my own awareness of it and it helps me understand why I do the things I do so I can try to find ways to correct my behavior. The sooner someone tries to correct the thought processes that cause it, the easier it is to overcome it. I've read the life stories of a lot of people in their 40s and 50s who have ended up on disability and are completely unable to leave their house, even for groceries, because they've become completely obsessed with the notion that everyone in the world is overtly or covertly critical of them.
It goes back further than the situation with my dad... even back in high school, I would avoid asking girls out and whatnot because of the fear of rejection. In college, I generally avoided parties and whatnot unless I knew people who were going to be there and then I'd pretty much strictly stick around the people that I knew. I often subconsciously test people to see if they're really trustworthy before I'll really consider attempting to have a friendship with them. I can trace the first manifestation all the way back to the 3rd grade so it really was present before the situation with my dad. That said, the situation I'm in definitely has forced me to withdraw more and in the process, made it even harder to try to do something different. The extent that the women in two of my relationships have went out of their way to do things to hurt me (and I'd call cheating on me with my "friends" deliberately trying to hurt me) has made my innate fear of approaching a woman even greater. Add in that I've been unemployed for the last 8 months (I got sick of constantly being put down at work not to mention only getting 2 raises in 10 years and having my vacation time taken away because they knew that I was stuck there) and my financial situation has languished to the point where I don't feel worthy of even trying to find someone anymore (though, not being constantly put down has made me feel better about myself).
Oh, and as typical for advoidant types, I haven't been to a shrink for formal diagnosis (I'm a hunter and the last thing I want to do is lose my right to own a gun when they catch wind about me having been depressed before, I don't trust psychologists and believe they have more of a motive to keep you where you are than to truly try to cure you, I don't want to be put on medications after seeing what they've done to friends, etc). I've done a ton of study since first hearing about AvPD and I finally feel like something describes me perfectly rather than just bits and pieces from other things. I've also prescribed myself a bit of a treatment plan but unlike a fear of heights, it's harder to plan a route of exposure therapy/desensitization since it is a dynamic, rather than a static fear. I do try to do other things like positive reinforcement, keeping a journal of things that I want to avoid so I can rationalize why I shouldn't once I'm out of the situation, etc... It has helped some but ultimately, I'm constrained by my situation. I've also tried to spend some of my time off fixing up stuff around the house (though I lack the funds to do the major stuff I want to do) and that has helped me feel like I'm making some kind of progress too. Ultimately, nagging at me, though, is the likelihood that I'll probably never meet anyone, have a family of my own, etc and that just puts more pressure on me to not screw up when I find someone I'd like to get to know better (meaning that I'm more likely to avoid talking to her all together so I don't have another catastrophic failure).
I got addicted (or call it whatever you want) to EQ... I was absolutely in a depressive state due to a variety of factors (I take care of my Dad and have spent my entire 20s basically stuck in/around the house with him, dated four girls over the course of that 10 year span(two of which went out of their way to mentally abuse me further), had to quit college to take care of my dad, was stuck in the same crappy job with no ability to get something else that was compatible with my situation, etc). To top it off, I have something called Avoidant Personality Disorder, which is a type of social anxiety disorder that basically manifests itself with me avoiding to do things, rather than do them and face "certain" rejection.
I started EQ just to play with my best friend here and there... after a couple months, I was approached about being an officer in my guild and shortly thereafter, became a raid leader. At that point, I had a dedication to the game and my guild... to top it off, I was completely accepted and thus didn't have to worry about facing the rejection of my peers. The game was a reality (though separate, I never confused the game and real life) for me that allowed me to relax and not be on guard all the time. Soon, I ended up as the guild leader and another officer and I split raid leadership duties. However, as guild leader and co-raid leader, I felt an even larger obligation to be on and helping out. That avoidant part inside me didn't want to let someone down or they might get mad at me (and thus, reject me). Factor in a regular series of personal accomplishments, group accomplishments, raid accomplishments and guild accomplishments and I was getting a regular high from the game.
I ended up playing between 8-14 hours a day and if I wasn't at work or sleeping, I was at least nearby in case something came up that needed my attention. Eventually, I started burning out and felt a need to leave the game because I knew it was taking a negative toll on my life. I couldn't quit, however, because my (then) gf and I had met in the game and we were living on separate coasts so the game was our way of spending time together every day in between flying back and forth. Not long after that, my co-raid leader realized he was in a similar situation to me and wanted to start a family so he quit. When he did, that increased my burden even more. I had to be on all the time, I had to schedule my life around a 3 night/week raid schedule (plus an "optional" 4th night for people wanting to work on their epics... I say optional because it was optional for everyone but me basically. The few times I didn't attend, I was begged and nagged, sometimes for up to a week prior to make sure I was there to help someone in particular out). Along the way, my gf and I broke up (she had a lot of mental problems herself... she left me for another one of our officers, switched servers and joined a hardcore raid guild where it was 6 nights a week mandatory and basically ignored her 4 year old daughter for the next year). With that, my main reason for staying was essentially gone but I still felt an obligation to everyone and was still enjoying the highs from my accomplishments. A few months later, my gf and I got back together and eventually she moved back to my server... at which point, her drama began all over again).
My officers hated my gf for what she had done to us, and especially me, over the course of the prior year... Our biggest problem as a guild was that the hardcore guilds would burn their people out and then proceed to bribe my guild members to leave so they (the hardcores) could sustain their pace rather than looking at self-sustainability. I had a fallout with the officers one night over yet another person leaving over a bribe after getting the last of what he wanted from us. They blamed me when in reality, he was just out to use us. After much fighting over it, I left the guild with my gf and we set out to start a new guild that wouldn't
This reminds me of TSR/WOTC publishing the first 250 issues of Dragon magazine back in 1999. I remember a lot of discussion over why things like ads and whatnot were included. A WOTC rep at the time (perhaps Ryan Dancey?) stated that the reason why the magazines were fully converted to PDF and they didn't strip anything out was because they had the right to republish their work in whole but didn't necessarily have the right to republish freelance content in a different publication. When Dragon was first published in 1976, nobody on either side of the contract ever even considered the idea that in the future, it would be completely trivial and cheap to distribute works in an ala carte type fashion. The solution to getting an article was to just procure a backissue of the magazine.
Anyway... WOTC felt that they were simply reproducing the content of the magazine, albeit on a new medium, and as long as it was an identical reproduction, they were within their rights. This court ruling seems to agree with that. Some people were happy about it and some grumbled.
Somewhat offtopic but related since it involves a potential copyright grab by the same company in the same timeframe...
More disturbing to me at the time, was Ryan Dancey going around implying that all unique work (such as campaign settings, character classes, spells, etc created by you in your home and for your friends) used in [A]D&D games at the time was derivative of [A]D&D and thus, at least in part, controlled and/or owned by TSR/WOTC. I promptly pulled all of the info on the setting I created off my website and have never put it back up since. Ignoring that I didn't care for the rule changes of D&D3 to begin with, I didn't trust the motives of WOTC when they came out with the D20 license and the market pretty much lost me completely in terms of buying new material. I'm still working on collecting some rare AD&D1/2 stuff that I don't have but I haven't bought a new book from TSR since somewhere around 1999/2000. I also stopped development on a suite of tools I was making to make things easier for DMs. The flamewars between Dancey and various community members in rec.games.frp.dnd at the time (hey seebs, if you read this) made the recent week-long flamewar over the GPL3 on LKML look rather tame.
That's judgments... what about settlements, including sealed settlements? And of course, a settlement doesn't necessarily mean the doctor was guilty of malpractice, possibly just that it was cheaper to settle than it would be to go to trial.
We had to take m68k assembly as part of my degree program. The class was taught by a professor who had just come back from spending the summer in India. Since I already knew x86 assembly, I was able to grasp the concepts fairly easily since I had a pretty good idea of what we were talking about to start with. A good portion of my class had absolutely no idea what they were being told and it really showed up in the lab portion where people would spend a week trying to write a simple program (perhaps to count from 1 to 10 on a LED by blinking it a corresponding number of times) and would come in with a 20 page program (had to submit a printout of our program for grading) that didn't work at all in comparison to my 2 page program.
The guy was a smart guy but he just couldn't efficiently pass that knowledge on to the inexperienced in the class. I remember one time when he spent more than a minute trying to get out the word "mailbox" as an analogy when we were talking about registers. Being freshly back from India had rethickened his accent as well, making it harder for him to enunciate(if you know someone who grew up somewhere with a distinct accent (like the south) and then lost it, try talking to them after they spend some time back home... you'll notice that they regained a good portion of their accent, especially immediately after returning). The guy definitely wasn't an idiot or inferior, he simply didn't have the ability to communicate in his non-native language to students to convey his understanding. That's not racism (superiority of one race over another), it's simply reality. He probably would have been a great teacher to a class full of people who's language he natively spoke.
who is prone to violence, kids who play games all the time, ( develop problem solving skills, interpersonal relationships on the net, team play etc.. ) or kids who play out side all the time. ( shooting birds, killing cats, stealing cars for joy rides )
Because every kid who plays video games is playing multiplayer tetris while every kid who goes outside is a juvenile criminal. There are video game players who will end up as serial killers and there are kids who go outside to play who will become peace loving hippies. Everything influences people in different ways. Despite having the same parents, my sister and I are polar opposites. You might be able to go to a dance club and have a good time, I go to a club and I start getting extremely irritated and will eventually become agitated to the point that I'll want to break something if I'm prevented from leaving.
I don't believe games (or playing outside) can turn someone to become a violent criminal, however either event can bring out suppressed traits in people. My ex-gf was fine before she started playing EQ but got to the point where she was ignoring her 4 year old daughter all the time to play the game, it caused all kinds of tension in our relationship even though I was hooked on EQ too, etc. It took someone who was normally a caring and responsible person and turned her into a royal bitch. Sure, it wasn't necessarily EQ, something else would have done the same thing if she let it control her that way. But the stimulus did cause a change in her personality (and in my own too... EQ free for 13 months now and starting to get my life back on track). Playing shooter type games reduces my stress levels. Listening to thrash metal does as well (despite being something else a lot of people will classify as innately violent). Neither is a negative trigger for me but they can be for some people. But that's just it, anything (no matter how seemingly innocuous) can be a trigger for someone. I challenge you to prove that anything can be 100% guaranteed to not trigger some type of negativity in 100% of people.
I'm guessing the credit companies use your SSN as a unique identifier and that's probably why they want it.
Also, while I understand not every union is like this, there are a lot of unions out there who are associated with organized crime or will employ similar tactics. They harass you and your children outside your home, form picket lines at the businesses of (especially non-union) competitors (such as USPS employees calling in sick and then standing outside of FedEx trying to block people from getting in), some will resort to vandalism, etc. I see a lot of construction union people protesting non-union contractors working on jobs like renovating a department store (harassing both the workers there and anyone who passes by out on the street). My best friend is in a skilled trade union and you would be amazed by the amount of brainwashing that they do on their members. Hell, the boss is stealing from the pension fund and yet nobody has had the balls to directly confront him on it. They're brushed off and distracted. My friend was going to say something but his union buddies convinced him to just keep his mouth shut or the guy in charge of finding work would stop being able to find work for him.
In the US, the post office is a de jure monopoly. The Constitution directly charges the federal government "To establish Post Offices and post roads." As such, competitors (DHL, UPS, FedEx, etc) are allowed to handle shipping but the US government (and specifically the postal arm) claims exclusive jurisdiction to mail. Your mailbox is declared federal property and only postal employees, you and anyone you directly give permission to are allowed to touch the contents of it. Newspapers and that sort of thing (which are delivered by private carriers) generally will attach another box onto the pole your mailbox is on to deliver their goods since they can't just stuff it in your mailbox.
I'd LOVE to see the USPS to get downsized. They're bloated, inefficient and wasteful. There's something wrong when the cost of a stamp goes up every 2 years but the price of garbage collection has remained flat for 25 years here (my provider specifically, not a municipal program) despite increasing costs of landfill disposal, recycling and fuel.
If they didn't deliver advertisements, they would only need to deliver mail once or twice a week. nobody uses regular mail for quick correspondences anymore. There is no need to deliver 6 days a week.
Absolutely correct... now, convince the union which controls the employees of the nation's second largest employer that you're going to need to eliminate more than half of their jobs since you're going down to 1 day a week. You'll, of course, still need to staff and manage the actual post office, distribution/sorting centers and transport mail between centers/offices but you'll cut down from 5 deliverers to 1. You could also cut down the transport between offices but some bills still can't be paid over the internet so I think people would prefer that their mail actually moves. What is now a 3 day trip might take 3 weeks if we cut back interoffice transport. Nevermind Granny or poor people who can't afford computers; To hell with them for being luddites.
Over time, times every person checking mail in the country, yeah, it does come to a lot. Which without advertisements would be less since you wouldn't need to get regular mail any more. see previous point.
Ever stop to think that it is the junk mail which makes up a core foundation of the post office's income? I've gone from mailing out 9 bills a month to mailing out 2, so they're definitely getting less money from me. However, their infrastructure costs aren't going down any time soon (nor will they go down if the union has anything to say about it). You can let advertisers pay that cost or you can raise taxes on every individual to support an ad-free mail system that they're still going to retire. Me? I'd rather keep paying the $10 or so a year I pay right now than pay an additional chunk of money in taxation.
Yeah, if you have nearby neighbors, the smoke will settle on their property until your chimney heats up. oh and don't forget of all the poisonous carcenigens you are putting in the air from the ink and paper processing materials.
Yeah... because most of of my neighbors burn fuel oil... it is so much healthier for everyone. Not to mention people using coal and putting trace amounts radioactive material up in the air. How do you recommend heating a home in NY six months a year in a way that won't have any negative impact whatsoever? I use a handful of paper once every few days when I accidentally let the fire burn out. Ooooh, scary.
That is completly false. While cheap, mass spammer do pay for the privilidge. Do you think the major providers don't know when someone sends 100K of emails...in fact you can pay them to be able to do that.
Ever hear of a botnet? If you have 20,000 machines each sending 5 mails, its a lot harder to track down. The boxes most likely to be sending out 100k at a time are corporate machines which have been hijacked and generally, their providers don't care too much what they do with their T3/OC line since they're selling connectivity/bandwidth not user services. The business has to employ someone to maintain that server to make sure it stays secure and to notice when it is spewing out 100k mails at a time. There are expenses for everyone out there running a mail server (employees, hardware failure, processing expansion for filtering, disk expansion, etc). If you have a website with a poorly laid out form (pick a random PHP project), you can end up with that form allowing people to send out spam (and good luck if you're the "IT guy" in a small business running the site because you're the one who knows why the computer won't turn on when the monitor is unplugged). Sending spam is MASSIVELY cheaper in comparison to junk mail. "Want to email a million addresses? Sure, we can do that for you for $25." "Want to junk mail a million mailboxes? Sure, that'll be $130,000." The spammer bears almost none of the cost associated with their endeavor, it is all passed on to the recipients and intermediaries so there is no incentive to carefully target their adv
I drive a 98 Ranger XLT with a 2.5L engine (2 wheel drive). 22 mpg has been my long term average since I bought the vehicle 9 years ago next month. While not a scientific measurement, a couple weeks ago, I towed my loaded trailer 80 miles plus drove another 80 miles or so before topping off. The result was just under 21 mpg. I've towed it several other times recently (though used up a full tank before refilling, most of which wasn't towing) and still got in the 21 mpg range. When I'm towing, I drive less aggressively (I won't pass someone unless I must, I accelerate slower, I try staying in the highest gear for as long as possible, decelerate slower coming to stops, etc). You can believe me or not, its your choice.
All the trees that go into making the paper, all the garbage that it produces, and all the lost productivity because of Junk Mail far outweigh the little bit of hard drive space and bandwidth email providers have to deal with.
You do realize that generally paper comes from young trees that are specifically grown, harvested and replanted for their pulp right? We aren't exactly clearcutting the rain forest for paper. Almost the entirety of the junk mail garbage is recyclable and biodegradable. I spend almost no productivity on junk mail in comparison to what I spend on spam.
Click delete a few times and the Spam mail is gone forever. Stop looking at porn and using your email for all sorts of "Free Trials" and the spam will be cut down tremendously.
Just "click delete a few times?" 100 times a day is "just a few times?" I have spamassassin categorizing my mail into "almost-certainly-spam", "probably-spam" and then passing the rest onto my regular filters. Every couple days, I scan through the two spam folders to make sure I'm not getting false positives. There are a couple people occasionally on linux-kernel which come up bayes00 but SA tags as spam for using a mail server with conflicting reverse DNS entries. One of the blacklist services might classify a server as a spammy bumping messages from someone into the "probably-spam" level. Most are obviously spam but it takes 5 minutes a day to scan through everything to make sure it is legitimately spam and classifying it as such (so that SA can process a guaranteed spam list to pick up tokens). Even with spamassassin and filtering, I get 5-6 spams a day that sneak through and get tossed into my regular mail folders that I need to deal with directly. As for why I get spams, my address has been harvested off linux-kernel, gnome mailing lists, USENET posts from a decade ago, etc. I had a couple universal throwaway addresses that I used for site registrations, but these days, I'll register with something site specific so I can see who is leaking my data (ie, slashdot07@mydomain.net).
In comparison, I look at my 3-4 pieces of mail on the way into the house and by the time I walk through my front door, it is sorted and the junk mail goes into the burn box. That's much closer to your "click delete a few times."