So I rather choose that some generations are allowed to have one child (and some to have three) than letting people starve or starting wars for water and food. Call me evil.
For even thinking that it is or should be your choice, I do call you evil. Did no-one ever explain to you the concept of convincing others through argument? Even if your intentions are good, immediately reaching for the stick to force others into your view of the world is what makes you evil. Thinking that you're entitled to that power is what makes you evil. The assumption that you know better is what makes you evil. I really wish I knew why so many of my fellow geeks suffer from this hubris. It should be obvious to any good engineer that they are fallible, so why is it that when it comes to social engineering they're suddenly all knowing?
Both as a technical concept and as a social phenomena. Quite a lot of people using Bitcoin are not doing so for practical benefits.. they're installing the software and promoting the concept as a sort of protest against the fiat banking system. Oh, and because they hate paypal.. but that's mutual.
That's a pretty interesting article.. and it demonstrates the power of portraying yourself as persecuted to attract new members.
However, I think they're pretty delusional about the robustness of the system. From the paper that started it all:
If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.
This obviously assumes the attacker is interested in profits that can be extracted from the system. An attacker who is already wealthy, and has a greater interest in undermining the system than extracting profit from it, can trivially overwhelm the network by assembling processing power - especially if the attacker already has a stockpile of processing power.
National governments obviously fall into this category, so if they ever decide to destroy Bitcoin they won't need to issue any bans or even tell anyone.
I'm sure you can think of some other potential attackers who have the capability.
Hey fellow geeks, tell me what you think about population control.. are you fundamentally opposed to involuntary sterilization or do you think it might sometimes be the right solution?
Some of the scariest social policies that I've ever heard have come out of the mouths of engineers. We're inherently heartless bastards who consider ourselves intellectually superior and so should have the right to sweep aside individual rights for what we consider to be the greater good.
For many of us, it has taken years of deprogramming to free ourselves from the "our kind know better" mindset.
But apparently if you were one of the spam-in-a-can heroes of the 60s space program we're required to accept everything you say as gospel until you die.
It's already the case that when slave labor practices are brought to light you have thousands of fanboys ranting about raising the standard of living in developing countries and it's better than starving (as if paying a living wage were simply not an option).
I hate Apple with a passion but think they're actually improving the standard of living in developing countries by offering work there.
The question is: are the workers free to leave for a better opportunity? If not, then they're slaves.. otherwise they're just poor, and hiring poor people is a nice thing to do.
Feature that will no doubt be added to Facebook soon: ghost profiles. They probably already have it for people who get tagged in photos but don't have a Facebook account, but I expect soon it will become an acknowledged process - you'll be able to say "I know that girl" and create a profile for her.. fill in any information you know about her.. and other people will do the same. Those of us who don't have Facebook profiles will first hear about it when someone says "hey, I sent you a friend request on Facebook and you didn't accept it!" and you say "I don't have a Facebook profile" and they say "oh, it must be a ghost profile."
For Internet? Sure.. for movies and video games? Yep, censorship is the official policy with no apologies. Adults are not permitted to decide what they wish to watch, that's the decision of the state.
It's not the design that is required, it's the design review process.
I've heard it described thus: justifying your design to supposed experts who quibble about the most inane parts of the design and ignore the most important. You could submit the most stupid stuff you can think of and they will debate you on the color of the paint you used.
testing of the crew cabin seats and controls (SpaceX is paying for this)
design review
more testing of the crew cabin seats and controls (SpaceX is paying for this)
confirmation that SpaceX has built the parts required for the Launch Abort System test
actually do the Launch Abort System test
yet another design review
So, out of 10 milestones, 4 of them involve actual work and 6 are posturing, paperwork and oversight. And to think, Space Act Agreements are the most efficient way NASA does business.
In the USA, the only country with such stupidity.. in the rest of the world patents are seen as a way to assure people they need not keep trade secrets.. if someone has already released the secret (by putting it in a product that can be reverse engineered) why would you then give them a patent?
Or, to put it more bluntly, obviously the price is updated every 3 years to keep up with inflation.. compare this to ULA who update their prices every 10 (yes, ten!) years and the only people they'll tell that price are NASA because they're required to by law, and that price remains confidential.
There's no consideration for a free software license.. therefore it isn't a contract.. in any court. Please, you really should talk to a lawyer sometime as getting your legal advice from the Free Software Foundation is a great way to be steered down the garden path (trust me, I've been misled for about a decade).
As for licenses that do have consideration, the copyright owner is still permitted to terminate them. If you suffer damages you can sue the copyright owner for those damages. That's how civil law works.
Well, seeing as you're the only serious reply, I guess we should have a conversation.
For normal (proprietary) licenses it's already been established that a copyright owner can revoke the license at any time simply by giving notice to the licensee. (Wood v Leadbitter).
They can legally do a bait and switch, handing out permissive licenses, waiting a few years, then revoking all the licenses and demanding payment from anyone who continues to copy or modify the software. This is established law in Australia (Computermate Products v Ozi-Soft), and the only law prohibiting it in the US is UCITA, which thankfully never much made it (as it has much worse effects, namely clickwrap licensing).
Ultimately it would take someone with deep pockets to do this.. and they'd have to be outright malicious towards Free Software (thus, Larry). They'd preferably want a product that was dual licensed in the first place, never really had much of a development community, and had a strict copyright assignment policy for contributors (the two tend to go hand in hand).. that way they can simply declare "the only license available for this software is now [the proprietary license]", and because there was no doubt that they are the sole copyright owner it would be sufficiently ambiguous whether or not they were referring to all versions of the software or just the future versions.
Their sales team would be instructed to inform customers that no, there is no GPL version of the software anymore, and yes, you do have to buy a license to install the software. At that point they're a proprietary software company and they will start treating their customers like proprietary software customers - that is, they'll start showing up at the doorstep to do software audits. That's when they start putting the hard word on customers to "upgrade" to the proprietary licensed software.. if the customers resist *on the grounds that they don't need to pay for old versions*, then the legal fangs come out and we find out if this whole GPL thing has been built on a foundation of sand.
Slashdot Mirror
So I rather choose that some generations are allowed to have one child (and some to have three) than letting people starve or starting wars for water and food. Call me evil.
For even thinking that it is or should be your choice, I do call you evil. Did no-one ever explain to you the concept of convincing others through argument? Even if your intentions are good, immediately reaching for the stick to force others into your view of the world is what makes you evil. Thinking that you're entitled to that power is what makes you evil. The assumption that you know better is what makes you evil. I really wish I knew why so many of my fellow geeks suffer from this hubris. It should be obvious to any good engineer that they are fallible, so why is it that when it comes to social engineering they're suddenly all knowing?
Both as a technical concept and as a social phenomena. Quite a lot of people using Bitcoin are not doing so for practical benefits.. they're installing the software and promoting the concept as a sort of protest against the fiat banking system. Oh, and because they hate paypal.. but that's mutual.
http://susansayler.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/bitcoin-p2p-currency-the-most-dangerous-project-weve-ever-seen/
That's a pretty interesting article.. and it demonstrates the power of portraying yourself as persecuted to attract new members.
However, I think they're pretty delusional about the robustness of the system. From the paper that started it all:
This obviously assumes the attacker is interested in profits that can be extracted from the system. An attacker who is already wealthy, and has a greater interest in undermining the system than extracting profit from it, can trivially overwhelm the network by assembling processing power - especially if the attacker already has a stockpile of processing power.
National governments obviously fall into this category, so if they ever decide to destroy Bitcoin they won't need to issue any bans or even tell anyone.
I'm sure you can think of some other potential attackers who have the capability.
Thanks for proving my point guys!
Hey fellow geeks, tell me what you think about population control.. are you fundamentally opposed to involuntary sterilization or do you think it might sometimes be the right solution?
Some of the scariest social policies that I've ever heard have come out of the mouths of engineers. We're inherently heartless bastards who consider ourselves intellectually superior and so should have the right to sweep aside individual rights for what we consider to be the greater good.
For many of us, it has taken years of deprogramming to free ourselves from the "our kind know better" mindset.
The concept of false arrest seems to have disappeared completely in the last 10 years.
If your company can't afford to buy you a second monitor, get out now.
By your own admission, this stuff is phenomenally cheap. Why is there even a discussion?
Also, the commies are coming.. oh, but we don't quote that part of the speech.
Neither actually make the idea any less retarded.
But apparently if you were one of the spam-in-a-can heroes of the 60s space program we're required to accept everything you say as gospel until you die.
Which won't be long now.. http://www.xkcd.com/893/
yes, I know. The public good coinciding with the commercial good, wtf? It's almost like that Adam Smith guy was onto something!
It's already the case that when slave labor practices are brought to light you have thousands of fanboys ranting about raising the standard of living in developing countries and it's better than starving (as if paying a living wage were simply not an option).
I hate Apple with a passion but think they're actually improving the standard of living in developing countries by offering work there.
The question is: are the workers free to leave for a better opportunity? If not, then they're slaves.. otherwise they're just poor, and hiring poor people is a nice thing to do.
Feature that will no doubt be added to Facebook soon: ghost profiles. They probably already have it for people who get tagged in photos but don't have a Facebook account, but I expect soon it will become an acknowledged process - you'll be able to say "I know that girl" and create a profile for her.. fill in any information you know about her.. and other people will do the same. Those of us who don't have Facebook profiles will first hear about it when someone says "hey, I sent you a friend request on Facebook and you didn't accept it!" and you say "I don't have a Facebook profile" and they say "oh, it must be a ghost profile."
Enjoy the total information society.
By definition a required rating is not voluntary.
A uniform system would be censorship... as that's the traditional role of movie classifications.
I think you mean you want a voluntary rating system, like the rest of the world.
Starbucks, even?
We don't have time for a handjob.
For Internet? Sure.. for movies and video games? Yep, censorship is the official policy with no apologies. Adults are not permitted to decide what they wish to watch, that's the decision of the state.
I read the article 3 days ago when it was news.
Hint: the title is unrelated to both the summary and the article.
It's not the design that is required, it's the design review process.
I've heard it described thus: justifying your design to supposed experts who quibble about the most inane parts of the design and ignore the most important. You could submit the most stupid stuff you can think of and they will debate you on the color of the paint you used.
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS03S_Boeing_SAA_Combined_Redacted.pdf
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS01S_SAA-%20SNC_Redacted.pdf
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS02S_SAA_BlueOrigin_04-18-2011.pdf
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS04S_SAA-SpaceX.pdf
The SpaceX milestones amount to this:
So, out of 10 milestones, 4 of them involve actual work and 6 are posturing, paperwork and oversight. And to think, Space Act Agreements are the most efficient way NASA does business.
In the USA, the only country with such stupidity.. in the rest of the world patents are seen as a way to assure people they need not keep trade secrets.. if someone has already released the secret (by putting it in a product that can be reverse engineered) why would you then give them a patent?
Or, to put it more bluntly, obviously the price is updated every 3 years to keep up with inflation.. compare this to ULA who update their prices every 10 (yes, ten!) years and the only people they'll tell that price are NASA because they're required to by law, and that price remains confidential.
Yeah, it's called "inflation" dumbass.
There's no consideration for a free software license.. therefore it isn't a contract.. in any court. Please, you really should talk to a lawyer sometime as getting your legal advice from the Free Software Foundation is a great way to be steered down the garden path (trust me, I've been misled for about a decade).
As for licenses that do have consideration, the copyright owner is still permitted to terminate them. If you suffer damages you can sue the copyright owner for those damages. That's how civil law works.
Well, seeing as you're the only serious reply, I guess we should have a conversation.
For normal (proprietary) licenses it's already been established that a copyright owner can revoke the license at any time simply by giving notice to the licensee. (Wood v Leadbitter).
They can legally do a bait and switch, handing out permissive licenses, waiting a few years, then revoking all the licenses and demanding payment from anyone who continues to copy or modify the software. This is established law in Australia (Computermate Products v Ozi-Soft), and the only law prohibiting it in the US is UCITA, which thankfully never much made it (as it has much worse effects, namely clickwrap licensing).
Ultimately it would take someone with deep pockets to do this.. and they'd have to be outright malicious towards Free Software (thus, Larry). They'd preferably want a product that was dual licensed in the first place, never really had much of a development community, and had a strict copyright assignment policy for contributors (the two tend to go hand in hand).. that way they can simply declare "the only license available for this software is now [the proprietary license]", and because there was no doubt that they are the sole copyright owner it would be sufficiently ambiguous whether or not they were referring to all versions of the software or just the future versions.
Their sales team would be instructed to inform customers that no, there is no GPL version of the software anymore, and yes, you do have to buy a license to install the software. At that point they're a proprietary software company and they will start treating their customers like proprietary software customers - that is, they'll start showing up at the doorstep to do software audits. That's when they start putting the hard word on customers to "upgrade" to the proprietary licensed software.. if the customers resist *on the grounds that they don't need to pay for old versions*, then the legal fangs come out and we find out if this whole GPL thing has been built on a foundation of sand.
Larry who?
Get off my lawn.