He argues about how his company has made an investment and deserves renumeration.
All right, leaving ad hominem attacks aside for the benefit of those who commented about that previously, let's point out the fallacy in the argument, independent of Gates' character:
Just because you make an investment does not mean that you "deserve" remuneration, at least not in any meaningful sense that creates an obligation in anyone else. My dad, for example, invested in several stocks of companies that went belly up. While we can argue that he "deserved" remuneration because of his investment (after all, think of the children! which at the time would have been me and my brother), the fact is that his stocks turned into toilet paper, and his investment didn't somehow create a magic obligation on the part of the public to see to it that he got his "remuneration" regardless of whether or not there were an actual market for what the company did.
So, if nobody wants what you're selling, you may "deserve" to recoup your investment, but nobody is obligated to give it to you. I further contend that in that case it's not right to try to manipulate the market through coercive laws in order to _make_ a market that gives you your "deserved" "remuneration."
Believe it or not, one of the most outspoken opponents of the "boldly sit where no man has sat before" space policy was Dan Quayle. I read about half of his memoirs years ago and I remember he related that over and over again he had to fight with people that wanted NASA to never do anything again and to slim down its existing projects. Remember "space station freedom"? He watched it slowly get dismantled and stripped down to a much less ambitious project, while arguing all the while that we needed to do more than just have a space station, but that if we were going to have one, we shouldn't build it so "on the cheap" that it couldn't even do what little it was designed to accomplish.
Interestingly enough, Quayle said that up until his time the Vice President was considered one of the main administration officials in charge of NASA. I don't know if that's true any more or not.
Are you saying that child-porn, for example should be OK?
Child porn is a problem that is greatly exaggerated in importance. From what I understand, the vast majority of "child" porn is teenagers. In many cases, it's a "crime" on the order of statutory rape between a 19 year old and a 17 year old. No, I honestly don't believe that taking nudie pictures of a 17 year old should be illegal.
The real crime of child porn is what is done to children (and I mean real children, not teenagers). What should be punished is the people who forced them to perform such sexual acts. (And such people should be punished most severely.) "But," you say, "we can't catch those people reliably." That's right. We can't stop the real crime effectively, so we have no legitimate claim to being effective in trying to stop it indirectly. This is really pretty similar to the drug war: we can't stop the people making and selling drugs, so we punish the people who use them. And all we succeed in doing is modifying the economics of the situation such that a thriving black market in drugs exists, adding to the expense and the crime involved.
The people who actually abuse children should be punished very severely, if they can be caught. I'd favor a punishment of severe beatings by neighbors or something. Maybe being thrown into a pit with no means of escape. But someone who merely has an image of such on his hard drive has not personally done anything to any child. He's not hurting anybody. (Except his wife and his children, but if you want to argue that that should be illegal you should be prepared to outlaw adultery.) Besides, the bits on that hard drive may have arrived in some other, unintentional way (computer may have been used by someone else, for example, or may have clicked on the wrong link and quickly left but retained something in his cache). There's just too much room for error: witness the story today about the woman being sued for downloading music who has never used a computer! Such laws only become weapons that can be misused to punish innocents; they do not help to stop the real criminals, the child molesters.
I also believe that parents have a vastly underestimated responsibility to prevent this from happening to their children. My two children are never going to have this happen to them, for the simple fact that they are never going to be out of (trusted) family supervision until they are teenagers. People can scoff and say that's unrealistic, but it works great for many people I know, and I'm not about to dangle my child out as bait for a kidnapper simply because someone called me "chicken" for being so "overprotective."
So why not punish the parents who, at least in some cases, failed to ensure their children's safety from such predators? That makes at least as much sense as punishing those who view the images.
No, I don't believe there should be any illegal content. All the "child porn" argument is is a rehashing of the same, tired old "for the children" strawman. Fine, exempt child porn if you wish, but as long as there are any legal restrictions on content it will be used as an argument to make additional restrictions, restrictions with no such pretenses of "for the children," and restrictions that constitute very real infringements of our freedom.
Do you really belive that all content should be available, even to children?
Nope. But that's between me as the parent and the content provider.
How about directions to carry on other illegl activities, such as copyright violations?
Directions to carry on illegal activities such as bomb making are already legal. No, such directions should not be illegal. Especially directions to violate copyright, since copyright is an unjust law.
It ain't hard, either. If you want to violate copyright, carry a book down the hall to the Xerox. Look at me! I'm distributing words that should be illegal!
I am an anarchist; that is correct. But I am an anarcho-capitalist, not an anarcho-socialist. Whatever form naturally evolves, be it socialism, capitalism, or whatever, is fine, as long as participation is not compelled.
If you'd like to read more, look around for information about anarcho-capitalism. There are essays about the idea of government basically being definable as a group that claims a monopoly on the use of force in an area, and speculates about what we could do if we busted up that monopoly.
I'd point you to such myself, but I got half of these ideas in person from a friend rather than from reading. It wasn't till later I realized how it fit into the larger anarcho-capitalist idea, and decided I agreed with the whole package. (To be specific, I thought the idea was nuts for about five years.)
Isn't it the same restriction of liberties, if you have to choose between your system and can't change back later?
That can be decided by competition, too. Some organizations/governments might require a lifelong pledge. Some might require you to be a part for a set period of time before being allowed to obtain any benefits. Some might provide benefits to all. Some might provide no benefits whatsoever other than defense.
I'm envisioning little "governments" that are in general much smaller than the one we have. All competing with each other. In the same geographic region: government ceases to be a monopoly.
I'd rather be looking for the middle way, a moderated capitalism based on a responsible society.
But nobody should get the right to compel others to whichever way they are looking for: the middle way, or the extreme, or whatever. Shoot, there may be an even better system that hasn't been innovated yet and would if we'd just quit compelling everybody to participate in our Ponzi scheme governments.
A society which is based on trust the interests of their individual members, which these in turn support because of their understanding
See, and if you didn't attempt to compel universal participation, you could actually select only those people you trust. Unfortunately the mob, I mean the government protection racket, is forcing you to select their single option.
Here's my best to provide the most definitive information I've heard, carefully trying to represent multiple points of view.
The answer as standardly taught in my religious tradition is as follows:
Upon death, a person's soul enters the "realm of the dead." In the Old Testament, this was referred to as the Hebrew word "Sheol," and in the New Testament (and Greek translations of the Old Testament), it is referred to borrowing the Greek word "Hades." In some Bibles, this is translated as "the Grave." It's used in such a way that it could refer to a real place (or at least something the inhabitants perceive as a "place"), but could also be construed to simply mean "you are dead" (and perhaps unaware). Most people in my faith tradition construe this to mean a place, but I personally am undecided between the two positions. (Descriptions of Sheol in the Bible describing it as a place in which the inhabitants are aware rather than simply a state in which the inhabitants are not could be construed as being symbolic rather than literal information.)
Various accounts in the Bible are taken to indicate that both the righteous and the unrighteous are in Hades (which, in the Bible, is never directly equated with "hell"; misconstruing these as being the same has resulted in a massive number of religious people throughout history asserting the Christ sort of "invaded" hell when He died, as some kind of a liberation of its inhabitants, when in reality the Bible says He went to Hades, simply meaning He went to where the dead go). The word "Tartarus" (also borrowed from Greek) is sometimes used in the Bible for this place, but only for the wicked, and the context indicates it is a place of suffering. Meanwhile, at least one righteous person after death was described as being in "Abraham's bosom" (and actually present with Abraham), and it is indicated as being a place of rest. The definitive information about this comes from a parable of Jesus called "the rich man and Lazarus," and you may read it in Luke 16. That parable also indicates that there is an uncrossible "great gulf" between the wicked rich man and the place where the poor man, Lazarus, was with Abraham. Again, this is something that some people believe may not have been intended to represent the actual state of people after death.
There are also passages that may use the word "Paradise" to refer to the Hades of the righteous. In particular, Jesus told the thief on the cross next to Him who repented and asked for mercy that "today you shall be with me in Paradise."
In my faith tradition, most people take the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to be an accurate description of the state of people for the time between their death and the Final Coming of Christ. Now, at the Coming, the following things happen: dead Christians rise (I Thessalonians 4:16), all of the dead will rise to a resurrection of either life or judgment based on the deeds they did (John 5:28-29), the living Christians and the resurrected dead Christians will rise to meet Christ in the air and live with Him forever (I Thessalonians 4:17), the earth and the universe will be destroyed by heat (II Peter 3:10), and all people will be judged by Christ (II Corinthians 5:10). Also, interestingly enough, Revelation says that Hades itself will be condemned to perish in the "lake of fire" or "second death" known elsewhere as hell (Revelation 20:13-14).
So under that traditional understanding, "Mommy" actually isn't in heaven yet, but is in a beautiful place of rest, assuming she lived righteously, in Paradise at Abraham's bosom, awaiting the last Day when her soul will be reunited with her body for the resurrection.
There are other understandings, but most of them fail to account for one or more pieces of information I included above. There's the "straight to heaven" idea, which seems incompatible with the final coming and with judgment, and doesn't have a passage (that I know of) that unequivocally supports it. And there's some other ideas that ge
Not everyone can climb up, otherwise the system wouldn't work. So who gets left at the bottom? Do those who don't get the breaks and can't climb up the ladder deserve their conditions and life?
...
So, rather then being confrontational through organizations such as unions, why can we not proactively correct the system so all workers, including those at the bottom of the pyramid, get the respect and decent working conditions they deserve?
I am on the bottom, I make more than 90% of Americans, and I like it that way. My job is usually enjoyable, although it is real work, and for the most part I love my working conditions other than the occasional lunacies of corporate bureaucracy. Please don't attempt to muck it up. Please, whatever reforms you want, please don't assume you represent me. Lobby for change where you are all you want, but please don't try to change the deal I have.
That's actually a really cool thought. I'm a laissez-faire capitalist, and it is still very interesting.
Under the system I envision, groups would be free to form communist, socialist, or whatever systems for themselves within the larger system. They just wouldn't have the right to force participation from everybody. That would provide a lot more competition, and I've always seen that as one of the benefits. Indeed, I'd argue that without that kind of freedom, we are not truly Free.
No. I'd rather some companies just not provide healthcare insurance (let's get real, here: this is about providing insurance, not healthcare) and let employees find it on their own with the increased salary that results. Competition and varying paradigms are good. The system is too "same" now with every company viewing it as their responsibility to provide healthcare insurance. I have never, ever understood that connection. In my case it makes sense for me because my company is gigantic enough that they can presumably obtain healthcare insurance in bulk at a better price than I would pay for it alone. But for me to assume that that would be best for everybody would be the height of arrogance.
The last thing we need is to make the system even more "same" by requiring every company to provide healthcare insurance, or adding additional regulations to what they must provide or worst of all providing it exactly the same to everybody from the government.
Pretty cool insight. Personally, I grew up aware that many companies would try to take more time than they were entitled to, so I entered the workforce prepared to make my stand and say "No." I work for a large corporation (with all the heartlessness, bureaucracy, and inefficiency that entails) where I started as a co-op student. When I became a full time "exempt" (salaried: they don't pay me for overtime) employee, I quickly realized there were no benefits for me, only potential benefits for my employer. So I strengthened the backbone I had already grown. Now I'm married, and still trying to finish my master's degree. I have a life and responsibilities outside of work. But even if I did not, it is still My Time.
When work needs me for emergencies or a big push, I've got no problem with it. But in general, I simply do not work more than forty hours a week. I change managers frequently, and when I get into a new organization there's often a lot of highly-stressed people expecting that we're all going to have to put in a ton of overtime. I never let that faze me. I figure out what tasks need to be completed by when and move heaven and earth to complete them before that date during my normal work weeks if at all possible. When people ask me to show up for extra work (non-emergency), I explain that I have something previously scheduled. And I always do. I am a very busy man. As I said, I have a life.
This has worked just fine for the last decade. All I needed was a backbone.
I have released a good amount of software under an open-source license, but not the GPL. I require that no one can make commercial use of my software.
Then what you are doing is not open source, and should not be called such. Please read the actual Open Source Definition, specifically point 6, rather than just assuming, "Well, I'm not one of those godless commies or smelly hippies from GNU, so I must be Open Source instead of Free Software."
Do what you want to do with your own IP; that's cool. It's your right. But you are misrepresenting yourself if you claim what you're distributing is open source. Can you identify the license you used on the list of Open Source licenses? No? Then why are you calling it Open Source?
Hell maybe I should get marketing or sales to write the article explainign all the times I've put the needs of the community ahead of the business needs.
If you dig back into the first couple of weeks following 9-11 there was an interesting post-mortem on slashdot's traffic that Taco posted at some point.
Never mind; ignore my last comment. The time formatting is basically there; it's just I don't use it because it doesn't have the day of the week in there, and I want that, too. I forgot that was the issue.
Sorry about that. I need to check on what I'm saying before I post.:)
I had an interview suggestion that spent about that long in "pending" status before it was finally rejected. I speculated they attempted to arrange an interview with the guy and it eventually fell through.
If I submitted a patch to add my preferred timestamp formatting (ISO) to the options, would it be likely to be added?
I added the year long ago and was quite pleased. But nowadays due to working with coworkers in all four primary American timezones as well as editing Wikipedia, I run my watch and PC on UTC time and use ISO standard format. I haven't gotten around to changing my slashdot prefs to UTC yet, but it's coming. The longer this goes on, the more I think getting up at 12:00 and going home at 22:00 makes sense.
Slashdot Mirror
You're measuring success incorrectly based on number of units used rather than total revenue society will be willing to pay for the units.
He argues about how his company has made an investment and deserves renumeration.
All right, leaving ad hominem attacks aside for the benefit of those who commented about that previously, let's point out the fallacy in the argument, independent of Gates' character:
Just because you make an investment does not mean that you "deserve" remuneration, at least not in any meaningful sense that creates an obligation in anyone else. My dad, for example, invested in several stocks of companies that went belly up. While we can argue that he "deserved" remuneration because of his investment (after all, think of the children! which at the time would have been me and my brother), the fact is that his stocks turned into toilet paper, and his investment didn't somehow create a magic obligation on the part of the public to see to it that he got his "remuneration" regardless of whether or not there were an actual market for what the company did.
So, if nobody wants what you're selling, you may "deserve" to recoup your investment, but nobody is obligated to give it to you. I further contend that in that case it's not right to try to manipulate the market through coercive laws in order to _make_ a market that gives you your "deserved" "remuneration."
Believe it or not, one of the most outspoken opponents of the "boldly sit where no man has sat before" space policy was Dan Quayle. I read about half of his memoirs years ago and I remember he related that over and over again he had to fight with people that wanted NASA to never do anything again and to slim down its existing projects. Remember "space station freedom"? He watched it slowly get dismantled and stripped down to a much less ambitious project, while arguing all the while that we needed to do more than just have a space station, but that if we were going to have one, we shouldn't build it so "on the cheap" that it couldn't even do what little it was designed to accomplish.
Interestingly enough, Quayle said that up until his time the Vice President was considered one of the main administration officials in charge of NASA. I don't know if that's true any more or not.
Are you saying that child-porn, for example should be OK?
Child porn is a problem that is greatly exaggerated in importance. From what I understand, the vast majority of "child" porn is teenagers. In many cases, it's a "crime" on the order of statutory rape between a 19 year old and a 17 year old. No, I honestly don't believe that taking nudie pictures of a 17 year old should be illegal.
The real crime of child porn is what is done to children (and I mean real children, not teenagers). What should be punished is the people who forced them to perform such sexual acts. (And such people should be punished most severely.) "But," you say, "we can't catch those people reliably." That's right. We can't stop the real crime effectively, so we have no legitimate claim to being effective in trying to stop it indirectly. This is really pretty similar to the drug war: we can't stop the people making and selling drugs, so we punish the people who use them. And all we succeed in doing is modifying the economics of the situation such that a thriving black market in drugs exists, adding to the expense and the crime involved.
The people who actually abuse children should be punished very severely, if they can be caught. I'd favor a punishment of severe beatings by neighbors or something. Maybe being thrown into a pit with no means of escape. But someone who merely has an image of such on his hard drive has not personally done anything to any child. He's not hurting anybody. (Except his wife and his children, but if you want to argue that that should be illegal you should be prepared to outlaw adultery.) Besides, the bits on that hard drive may have arrived in some other, unintentional way (computer may have been used by someone else, for example, or may have clicked on the wrong link and quickly left but retained something in his cache). There's just too much room for error: witness the story today about the woman being sued for downloading music who has never used a computer! Such laws only become weapons that can be misused to punish innocents; they do not help to stop the real criminals, the child molesters.
I also believe that parents have a vastly underestimated responsibility to prevent this from happening to their children. My two children are never going to have this happen to them, for the simple fact that they are never going to be out of (trusted) family supervision until they are teenagers. People can scoff and say that's unrealistic, but it works great for many people I know, and I'm not about to dangle my child out as bait for a kidnapper simply because someone called me "chicken" for being so "overprotective."
So why not punish the parents who, at least in some cases, failed to ensure their children's safety from such predators? That makes at least as much sense as punishing those who view the images.
No, I don't believe there should be any illegal content. All the "child porn" argument is is a rehashing of the same, tired old "for the children" strawman. Fine, exempt child porn if you wish, but as long as there are any legal restrictions on content it will be used as an argument to make additional restrictions, restrictions with no such pretenses of "for the children," and restrictions that constitute very real infringements of our freedom.
Do you really belive that all content should be available, even to children?
Nope. But that's between me as the parent and the content provider.
How about directions to carry on other illegl activities, such as copyright violations?
Directions to carry on illegal activities such as bomb making are already legal. No, such directions should not be illegal. Especially directions to violate copyright, since copyright is an unjust law.
It ain't hard, either. If you want to violate copyright, carry a book down the hall to the Xerox. Look at me! I'm distributing words that should be illegal!
If the police no longer respond to my call bec
The cost of the carriers monitoring and checking every packet for illegal content would quicky overwhelm them all.
Your argument might hold more weight with me if I believed there should be such a thing as "illegal content."
BTW, how do you feel about ad blockers?
Oh, good; thank you! I never know when I post about religion if I'm going to get flamed, or what! :)
As for regulation, stop being afraid of it.
No. You stop promoting it.
I am an anarchist; that is correct. But I am an anarcho-capitalist, not an anarcho-socialist. Whatever form naturally evolves, be it socialism, capitalism, or whatever, is fine, as long as participation is not compelled.
If you'd like to read more, look around for information about anarcho-capitalism. There are essays about the idea of government basically being definable as a group that claims a monopoly on the use of force in an area, and speculates about what we could do if we busted up that monopoly.
I'd point you to such myself, but I got half of these ideas in person from a friend rather than from reading. It wasn't till later I realized how it fit into the larger anarcho-capitalist idea, and decided I agreed with the whole package. (To be specific, I thought the idea was nuts for about five years.)
And interestingly, the Libertarian party platform effectively calls for the right to do this for everybody.
Isn't it the same restriction of liberties, if you have to choose between your system and can't change back later?
That can be decided by competition, too. Some organizations/governments might require a lifelong pledge. Some might require you to be a part for a set period of time before being allowed to obtain any benefits. Some might provide benefits to all. Some might provide no benefits whatsoever other than defense.
I'm envisioning little "governments" that are in general much smaller than the one we have. All competing with each other. In the same geographic region: government ceases to be a monopoly.
I'd rather be looking for the middle way, a moderated capitalism based on a responsible society.
But nobody should get the right to compel others to whichever way they are looking for: the middle way, or the extreme, or whatever. Shoot, there may be an even better system that hasn't been innovated yet and would if we'd just quit compelling everybody to participate in our Ponzi scheme governments.
A society which is based on trust the interests of their individual members, which these in turn support because of their understanding
See, and if you didn't attempt to compel universal participation, you could actually select only those people you trust. Unfortunately the mob, I mean the government protection racket, is forcing you to select their single option.
Here's my best to provide the most definitive information I've heard, carefully trying to represent multiple points of view.
The answer as standardly taught in my religious tradition is as follows:
Upon death, a person's soul enters the "realm of the dead." In the Old Testament, this was referred to as the Hebrew word "Sheol," and in the New Testament (and Greek translations of the Old Testament), it is referred to borrowing the Greek word "Hades." In some Bibles, this is translated as "the Grave." It's used in such a way that it could refer to a real place (or at least something the inhabitants perceive as a "place"), but could also be construed to simply mean "you are dead" (and perhaps unaware). Most people in my faith tradition construe this to mean a place, but I personally am undecided between the two positions. (Descriptions of Sheol in the Bible describing it as a place in which the inhabitants are aware rather than simply a state in which the inhabitants are not could be construed as being symbolic rather than literal information.)
Various accounts in the Bible are taken to indicate that both the righteous and the unrighteous are in Hades (which, in the Bible, is never directly equated with "hell"; misconstruing these as being the same has resulted in a massive number of religious people throughout history asserting the Christ sort of "invaded" hell when He died, as some kind of a liberation of its inhabitants, when in reality the Bible says He went to Hades, simply meaning He went to where the dead go). The word "Tartarus" (also borrowed from Greek) is sometimes used in the Bible for this place, but only for the wicked, and the context indicates it is a place of suffering. Meanwhile, at least one righteous person after death was described as being in "Abraham's bosom" (and actually present with Abraham), and it is indicated as being a place of rest. The definitive information about this comes from a parable of Jesus called "the rich man and Lazarus," and you may read it in Luke 16. That parable also indicates that there is an uncrossible "great gulf" between the wicked rich man and the place where the poor man, Lazarus, was with Abraham. Again, this is something that some people believe may not have been intended to represent the actual state of people after death.
There are also passages that may use the word "Paradise" to refer to the Hades of the righteous. In particular, Jesus told the thief on the cross next to Him who repented and asked for mercy that "today you shall be with me in Paradise."
In my faith tradition, most people take the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to be an accurate description of the state of people for the time between their death and the Final Coming of Christ. Now, at the Coming, the following things happen: dead Christians rise (I Thessalonians 4:16), all of the dead will rise to a resurrection of either life or judgment based on the deeds they did (John 5:28-29), the living Christians and the resurrected dead Christians will rise to meet Christ in the air and live with Him forever (I Thessalonians 4:17), the earth and the universe will be destroyed by heat (II Peter 3:10), and all people will be judged by Christ (II Corinthians 5:10). Also, interestingly enough, Revelation says that Hades itself will be condemned to perish in the "lake of fire" or "second death" known elsewhere as hell (Revelation 20:13-14).
So under that traditional understanding, "Mommy" actually isn't in heaven yet, but is in a beautiful place of rest, assuming she lived righteously, in Paradise at Abraham's bosom, awaiting the last Day when her soul will be reunited with her body for the resurrection.
There are other understandings, but most of them fail to account for one or more pieces of information I included above. There's the "straight to heaven" idea, which seems incompatible with the final coming and with judgment, and doesn't have a passage (that I know of) that unequivocally supports it. And there's some other ideas that ge
Yeah, for the record, I'm in telecom (in IT), too.
Not everyone can climb up, otherwise the system wouldn't work. So who gets left at the bottom? Do those who don't get the breaks and can't climb up the ladder deserve their conditions and life?
...
So, rather then being confrontational through organizations such as unions, why can we not proactively correct the system so all workers, including those at the bottom of the pyramid, get the respect and decent working conditions they deserve?
I am on the bottom, I make more than 90% of Americans, and I like it that way. My job is usually enjoyable, although it is real work, and for the most part I love my working conditions other than the occasional lunacies of corporate bureaucracy. Please don't attempt to muck it up. Please, whatever reforms you want, please don't assume you represent me. Lobby for change where you are all you want, but please don't try to change the deal I have.
That's actually a really cool thought. I'm a laissez-faire capitalist, and it is still very interesting.
Under the system I envision, groups would be free to form communist, socialist, or whatever systems for themselves within the larger system. They just wouldn't have the right to force participation from everybody. That would provide a lot more competition, and I've always seen that as one of the benefits. Indeed, I'd argue that without that kind of freedom, we are not truly Free.
No. I'd rather some companies just not provide healthcare insurance (let's get real, here: this is about providing insurance, not healthcare) and let employees find it on their own with the increased salary that results. Competition and varying paradigms are good. The system is too "same" now with every company viewing it as their responsibility to provide healthcare insurance. I have never, ever understood that connection. In my case it makes sense for me because my company is gigantic enough that they can presumably obtain healthcare insurance in bulk at a better price than I would pay for it alone. But for me to assume that that would be best for everybody would be the height of arrogance.
The last thing we need is to make the system even more "same" by requiring every company to provide healthcare insurance, or adding additional regulations to what they must provide or worst of all providing it exactly the same to everybody from the government.
Pretty cool insight. Personally, I grew up aware that many companies would try to take more time than they were entitled to, so I entered the workforce prepared to make my stand and say "No." I work for a large corporation (with all the heartlessness, bureaucracy, and inefficiency that entails) where I started as a co-op student. When I became a full time "exempt" (salaried: they don't pay me for overtime) employee, I quickly realized there were no benefits for me, only potential benefits for my employer. So I strengthened the backbone I had already grown. Now I'm married, and still trying to finish my master's degree. I have a life and responsibilities outside of work. But even if I did not, it is still My Time.
When work needs me for emergencies or a big push, I've got no problem with it. But in general, I simply do not work more than forty hours a week. I change managers frequently, and when I get into a new organization there's often a lot of highly-stressed people expecting that we're all going to have to put in a ton of overtime. I never let that faze me. I figure out what tasks need to be completed by when and move heaven and earth to complete them before that date during my normal work weeks if at all possible. When people ask me to show up for extra work (non-emergency), I explain that I have something previously scheduled. And I always do. I am a very busy man. As I said, I have a life.
This has worked just fine for the last decade. All I needed was a backbone.
I have released a good amount of software under an open-source license, but not the GPL. I require that no one can make commercial use of my software.
Then what you are doing is not open source, and should not be called such. Please read the actual Open Source Definition, specifically point 6, rather than just assuming, "Well, I'm not one of those godless commies or smelly hippies from GNU, so I must be Open Source instead of Free Software."
Do what you want to do with your own IP; that's cool. It's your right. But you are misrepresenting yourself if you claim what you're distributing is open source. Can you identify the license you used on the list of Open Source licenses? No? Then why are you calling it Open Source?
Hell maybe I should get marketing or sales to write the article explainign all the times I've put the needs of the community ahead of the business needs.
That would be a pretty cool idea, actually.
Republicans?
Yes. You knew that, right?
Yes, because clearly one data point is enough to extrapolate a general conclusion.
If you dig back into the first couple of weeks following 9-11 there was an interesting post-mortem on slashdot's traffic that Taco posted at some point.
Never mind; ignore my last comment. The time formatting is basically there; it's just I don't use it because it doesn't have the day of the week in there, and I want that, too. I forgot that was the issue.
Sorry about that. I need to check on what I'm saying before I post. :)
I had an interview suggestion that spent about that long in "pending" status before it was finally rejected. I speculated they attempted to arrange an interview with the guy and it eventually fell through.
If I submitted a patch to add my preferred timestamp formatting (ISO) to the options, would it be likely to be added?
I added the year long ago and was quite pleased. But nowadays due to working with coworkers in all four primary American timezones as well as editing Wikipedia, I run my watch and PC on UTC time and use ISO standard format. I haven't gotten around to changing my slashdot prefs to UTC yet, but it's coming. The longer this goes on, the more I think getting up at 12:00 and going home at 22:00 makes sense.