Somewhat maybe. In any case many people just want to experience flying. It is great fun to fly. And testing new planes is a special kind of fun at that. So I'm sure he had fun. And I'm sure he outweighed the fun versus the risk. I'm a frequent paraglider pilot, and even this close to earth lethal accidents do happen.
I for one accept my risks and live to have fun:)
While I do think the article is too long, I think some of the actions of Google are to be expected. Microsoft is also lobbying massively in Washington, and Google has to put some counterweight on that - one could think.
But what Assange lists about Google Ideas is disturbing.
And when I look at the Google Ideas website, it seems to be a very valid point. And even more disturbing.
Yet I do believe he thinks the CEO of Google has more power than he has in reality. And I might be naive. But, seriously, they should look better into what Jared Cohen is doing with the money of Google, there certainly is something fishy about this guy, his connection and interpretation of 'do no evil', thanks to Assange for pointing that out!
I think its a completely different thing. In stonehenge, there was no mega-river which flooded the entire area. While making things difficult in some way, the flooding allowed the Egyptians to move heavy stuff easily because of the Archimedes principle.
They had boats and knew everything about locks and irrigation.
Stonehenge? I think that's a different matter.
They where moved by irrigation.
the flats around the pyramids are perfectly flat. And where flooded with water when the Nile was at a yearly peak.
The water was trapped inside. The fence to keep the water inside is still standing
A corridor in the middle towards the pyramid was build and had dams to move the ships upward
The signs of the dam plates are still there in the corridors
The pyramid itself was a water basin, with the outside walls keeping the water inside
That's why they are all perfectly level
The ships moved the bricks in and lowered them to fill the pyramid. as a result the water rises.
However, water evaporates, and the movement of the ships upwards needs a water displacement at least equal to the mass moved up
So the ancient egyptians left clues everywhere to explain how they did it: everywhere, in the tombs in the pyramids, and even in New Kingdom in the Valley of the Kings, they drew how they accomplished it: by carrying buckets of water on their head.
That's how they build the pyramids; by putting water in the top of the pyramid, till all the ships with the stones where there.
Now, was that so hard to figure out? Stupid archeologists!
I made a chart of the public data available by the WHO.
Both the cases and the deaths are matching a lot with the exponential curves onto them. I've put it online here: https://plus.google.com/+Jaspe...
Would you agree with such a law?
How are they going to define a 'OSS' license?
Don't you think we will find a way around that to create another license not fitting that description and rendering that executive order useless.
No president would issue an executive order if it also hurts the software industry in the same way.
But I guess it's a valid point and something to be taken into consideration when drafting such a GPLv4.
Also don't forget that the GPLv4 goes a lot further than only the US...
We make software for a reason. Not to just give it away for free as in beer. But to provide freedom.
For that reason we ask people to release the changes to the code back to our collection of software which provides more freedom.
While certain companies are concerned about competitors getting to see their code, the disadvantages are much less important than the advantages of being able to stand on the shoulders of the giants in the opensource community.
We limit the freedom of people who want to use our code without giving back, so we can ensure a future in which we can access data without having to depend on one company. Together we are building that future.
Yet we see that our code is being used for mass surveillance.
To snoop upon all our communications.
To invade our privacy.
To datamine our meta-data and to possibly make far-reaching conclusions.
And to build weapons of mass destruction.
I don't want to contribute to such a future.
Developers have the choice to license their software under licenses as they choose appropriately.
Certainly the BSD license can still be used for such applications, even GPLv3 and GPLv2 licensed programs - in the far fetched assumption that the GPLv4 would become the 'good public license'.
And changing the law to remove clauses out of a software license,... well I think it's highly improbable and very difficult to implement in a law. Yet nothing is impossible. And it would probably lead again to a new software license (and a lot of relicensing work).
As we currently limit the freedom of those who want to create DRM-protected GPLv3 linux appliances. Or as we limit the freedom of people who would like to redistribute a Linux derivative in a proprietary format.
Certain freedoms have to be limited to protect our interests and preserve our own freedoms and even our privacy.
I can't speak for Russia, but Germany is very strict about copyright regulations.
Just as the current license is very good respected, and for certain embedded applications the GPLv3 is avoided, they would certainly not want to risk any software license violation.
While an arms race might have been important in the past, it isn't what drives current civilisation.
And I hope it will stay that way.
At least in my country most of the intelligent Linux developers don't want to work for the weapons manufacturer. So they build less good soft/hardware as they could have otherwise.
Just like good developers don't want to work for Microsoft, because who wants to be associated with that?
The key thing is that I don't want to personally decide what is 'evil' and what is not.
But we are doing that right now with the GPLv3 already.
I believe that the EFF has a wonderful opportunity there to form a committee to make that definition and implement it legally.
One could limit the scope of 'evil' to weapons of mass destruction.
I guess that's a valid debate.
And it will still be possible to make them without our software...
I just don't want to have helped them!
We make software because of that warm fuzzy feeling. Not to know that it contributes to killing people (from whatever country).
Again I call for the GPLv4 to become the 'good public license'.
Cannot be used for weapon manufacturing or mass surveillance... or anything defined as 'evil' by a FSF committee.
I don't want to be part of the evil masterplans of those basards.
Currently 'patent protection' is defined as evil. But I think most of us agree there are more fundamental evil for which our software can be used...
The should not be allowed to have it both ways: protect the source code because it's "valuable" but not support is any more because it has become worthless crap - and hell yes - why not make it a more general law: If you drop support for old software; your company should be enforced to open the source. This has several advantages:
1) Old hardware can still be supported, so there is less e-waste
2) Customers are not forced into anything
3) Even more world domination for Open Source software!
Whatever license, as long as it's OSI approved.
And I can't resist to post a link to our press release done today.
Correctly assessed!
And the numbers of failure for Tesla are even much worse than Ford: "There have been 12 reported fires but no injuries in the bigger recall of 139,917 Ford Escape vehicles." - so one in 11659 cars.
Tesla has sold an estimated 18,200 units through September 2013 (according to wikipedia) with 3 fires - so one in 6066 cars.
Neglecting or minimising this problem is a bad thing for everybody.
It is sad that they didn't go for the Ubuntu phone - I was one of the (many) people who contributed to the kickstarter.
Having raised more than 10M usd and then not releasing it... WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT.
Maybe Marc is burning through his cash too quickly. Who knows.
But I still think he helped OpenSource and Free Software a lot, whatever direction it turns out to go into.
It looks like there will not be an Ubuntu phone ready for the Xmas shopping season this year, and that's sad, very sad!
Even Apple launched a new phone without having any real new features...
I'm sure you didn't upgrade Fedora 12 to 19 on the command line.
It isn't supported and it doesn't work.
It's a shame.
Ah and did you try this: rpm -qa | grep -i v fc19
how many old version shit is still hanging around?
We prefer Ubuntu over Fedora out of stability and software choices. Of course Ubuntu has its issues too. But you don't get that much of a 'leaking ship' feeling...
I understand your point.
I believe - just like Linus Torvalds - that there is something terrible wrong with the UI designers in Linux.
The kernel has learned from the very beginning that it needs to be stable to userspace, yet the UI designers try to make users change their behaviour with every major release of their crap.
Yesterday I heared that GNOME wants to drop the middle-mouse paste.
Who the fuck they think they are for messing with our user experience. It's just rude.
And that's also one of the major points of critique.
An operating system experience designer should not have to choose between 'dumb' and 'power user'.
Both need to be possible at the same time. But uninformed UI designers try to copy MacOS where they don't even know about the power user options within the Finder. They themselves think it's dumb. But in reality they are the only dumb ones.
In the FOSS context, we can however stick with Enlightenment or with any other window manager, and in the current situation small and light window managers indeed remain wildly competitive with dumb but bloated Unity or Gnome or KDE desktops which lack uniformity and power user options.
But I'm getting off topic; it's more of a general UI experience topic than a pure Ubuntu disaster.
I like the fact that Ubuntu tries with unity to do something new.
BUT it is not that more than a good-effort try. It doesn't work that great. It improved a bit with 13.10, I believe.
As I said, only time will tell if Ubuntu scared away too much power users.
"I've been using Fedora for a few months now "; I am happy for you. Just ignore my post and enjoy the joys of being a newbee on a new distro. It's fun to learn the differences between the different linux distro's! Enjoy...
Yes, but it is slow.
And if you ever tried upgrading Fedora from the command line, you know what for a mess it is.
I'm certain it isn't used successfully by YOU on more than a few servers if you say that...
We support thousands of systems, and know what the difference is:)
It's workable for most situations, but it's crappy technology compared to.deb/apt-get
Being popular as a distribution does not mean they are evil. And the comparison with Windows is just plain _stupid_
Microsoft promotes software patenting.
Microsoft embraces and extends open standards to break them - allows importing of data but only crappy exporting.
Now, I do agree that Ubuntu made some less popular decisions to make money.
While I don't like it either, they are easily apt-get removed.
Ubuntu also does their software development in OpenSource fashion.
I think some of the ubuntu-bashing is unjustified and unconstructive.
Ubuntu has a certain amount of critical mass which is very interesting and which leads to a better quality experience than for example with Fedora.
While I don't agree with all the 'dumbing down', it still allows power user to dive as deep as they want into the system and into the code. And I like the fact that it's not required for novice users.
Slashdot Mirror
Somewhat maybe. In any case many people just want to experience flying. It is great fun to fly. And testing new planes is a special kind of fun at that. So I'm sure he had fun. And I'm sure he outweighed the fun versus the risk. I'm a frequent paraglider pilot, and even this close to earth lethal accidents do happen. :)
I for one accept my risks and live to have fun
While I do think the article is too long, I think some of the actions of Google are to be expected. Microsoft is also lobbying massively in Washington, and Google has to put some counterweight on that - one could think.
But what Assange lists about Google Ideas is disturbing.
And when I look at the Google Ideas website, it seems to be a very valid point. And even more disturbing.
Yet I do believe he thinks the CEO of Google has more power than he has in reality. And I might be naive. But, seriously, they should look better into what Jared Cohen is doing with the money of Google, there certainly is something fishy about this guy, his connection and interpretation of 'do no evil', thanks to Assange for pointing that out!
I think its a completely different thing. In stonehenge, there was no mega-river which flooded the entire area. While making things difficult in some way, the flooding allowed the Egyptians to move heavy stuff easily because of the Archimedes principle.
They had boats and knew everything about locks and irrigation.
Stonehenge? I think that's a different matter.
I imagine some archeologists can't either. They just don't understand physics... yet the method of construction seems clear to me.
They where moved by irrigation.
the flats around the pyramids are perfectly flat. And where flooded with water when the Nile was at a yearly peak.
The water was trapped inside. The fence to keep the water inside is still standing
A corridor in the middle towards the pyramid was build and had dams to move the ships upward
The signs of the dam plates are still there in the corridors
The pyramid itself was a water basin, with the outside walls keeping the water inside
That's why they are all perfectly level
The ships moved the bricks in and lowered them to fill the pyramid. as a result the water rises.
However, water evaporates, and the movement of the ships upwards needs a water displacement at least equal to the mass moved up
So the ancient egyptians left clues everywhere to explain how they did it: everywhere, in the tombs in the pyramids, and even in New Kingdom in the Valley of the Kings, they drew how they accomplished it: by carrying buckets of water on their head.
That's how they build the pyramids; by putting water in the top of the pyramid, till all the ships with the stones where there.
Now, was that so hard to figure out? Stupid archeologists!
I made a chart of the public data available by the WHO. Both the cases and the deaths are matching a lot with the exponential curves onto them. I've put it online here: https://plus.google.com/+Jaspe...
But the weapon manufacturers would have to look elsewhere for their software.
And the implications for such a law would go much further than OpenSource software.
It would be valid for any commercially developed software too.
I would be very surprised if the US government would pass a law to contradict the software industry to such an extend!
How are they going to define a 'OSS' license?
Don't you think we will find a way around that to create another license not fitting that description and rendering that executive order useless.
No president would issue an executive order if it also hurts the software industry in the same way.
But I guess it's a valid point and something to be taken into consideration when drafting such a GPLv4.
Also don't forget that the GPLv4 goes a lot further than only the US...
For that reason we ask people to release the changes to the code back to our collection of software which provides more freedom.
While certain companies are concerned about competitors getting to see their code, the disadvantages are much less important than the advantages of being able to stand on the shoulders of the giants in the opensource community.
We limit the freedom of people who want to use our code without giving back, so we can ensure a future in which we can access data without having to depend on one company. Together we are building that future.
Yet we see that our code is being used for mass surveillance.
To snoop upon all our communications.
To invade our privacy.
To datamine our meta-data and to possibly make far-reaching conclusions.
And to build weapons of mass destruction.
I don't want to contribute to such a future.
Developers have the choice to license their software under licenses as they choose appropriately.
Certainly the BSD license can still be used for such applications, even GPLv3 and GPLv2 licensed programs - in the far fetched assumption that the GPLv4 would become the 'good public license'.
And changing the law to remove clauses out of a software license,... well I think it's highly improbable and very difficult to implement in a law. Yet nothing is impossible. And it would probably lead again to a new software license (and a lot of relicensing work).
Certain freedoms have to be limited to protect our interests and preserve our own freedoms and even our privacy.
Just as the current license is very good respected, and for certain embedded applications the GPLv3 is avoided, they would certainly not want to risk any software license violation.
And I hope it will stay that way.
At least in my country most of the intelligent Linux developers don't want to work for the weapons manufacturer. So they build less good soft/hardware as they could have otherwise.
Just like good developers don't want to work for Microsoft, because who wants to be associated with that?
The key thing is that I don't want to personally decide what is 'evil' and what is not.
But we are doing that right now with the GPLv3 already.
I believe that the EFF has a wonderful opportunity there to form a committee to make that definition and implement it legally.
And if they would use it, at least we could sue them...
My bet is they would not. And that they would have to rely upon outdated crappy software. Or pay a lot more for their software development.
Or just use software with older versions of the GPL only.
I guess that's a valid debate.
And it will still be possible to make them without our software... I just don't want to have helped them!
We make software because of that warm fuzzy feeling. Not to know that it contributes to killing people (from whatever country).
Cannot be used for weapon manufacturing or mass surveillance... or anything defined as 'evil' by a FSF committee.
I don't want to be part of the evil masterplans of those basards.
Currently 'patent protection' is defined as evil. But I think most of us agree there are more fundamental evil for which our software can be used...
Wake up RMS!
1) Old hardware can still be supported, so there is less e-waste
2) Customers are not forced into anything
3) Even more world domination for Open Source software!
Whatever license, as long as it's OSI approved.
And I can't resist to post a link to our press release done today.
Correctly assessed!
And the numbers of failure for Tesla are even much worse than Ford: "There have been 12 reported fires but no injuries in the bigger recall of 139,917 Ford Escape vehicles." - so one in 11659 cars.
Tesla has sold an estimated 18,200 units through September 2013 (according to wikipedia) with 3 fires - so one in 6066 cars.
Neglecting or minimising this problem is a bad thing for everybody.
It is sad that they didn't go for the Ubuntu phone - I was one of the (many) people who contributed to the kickstarter.
Having raised more than 10M usd and then not releasing it... WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT.
Maybe Marc is burning through his cash too quickly. Who knows.
But I still think he helped OpenSource and Free Software a lot, whatever direction it turns out to go into.
It looks like there will not be an Ubuntu phone ready for the Xmas shopping season this year, and that's sad, very sad!
Even Apple launched a new phone without having any real new features...
I'm sure you didn't upgrade Fedora 12 to 19 on the command line.
It isn't supported and it doesn't work.
It's a shame.
Ah and did you try this: rpm -qa | grep -i v fc19
how many old version shit is still hanging around?
We prefer Ubuntu over Fedora out of stability and software choices. Of course Ubuntu has its issues too. But you don't get that much of a 'leaking ship' feeling...
Google on 'Cinnamon just crashed'...
I believe - just like Linus Torvalds - that there is something terrible wrong with the UI designers in Linux.
The kernel has learned from the very beginning that it needs to be stable to userspace, yet the UI designers try to make users change their behaviour with every major release of their crap.
Yesterday I heared that GNOME wants to drop the middle-mouse paste.
Who the fuck they think they are for messing with our user experience. It's just rude.
And that's also one of the major points of critique.
An operating system experience designer should not have to choose between 'dumb' and 'power user'.
Both need to be possible at the same time. But uninformed UI designers try to copy MacOS where they don't even know about the power user options within the Finder. They themselves think it's dumb. But in reality they are the only dumb ones.
In the FOSS context, we can however stick with Enlightenment or with any other window manager, and in the current situation small and light window managers indeed remain wildly competitive with dumb but bloated Unity or Gnome or KDE desktops which lack uniformity and power user options.
But I'm getting off topic; it's more of a general UI experience topic than a pure Ubuntu disaster.
I like the fact that Ubuntu tries with unity to do something new.
BUT it is not that more than a good-effort try. It doesn't work that great. It improved a bit with 13.10, I believe.
As I said, only time will tell if Ubuntu scared away too much power users.
"I've been using Fedora for a few months now "; I am happy for you. Just ignore my post and enjoy the joys of being a newbee on a new distro. It's fun to learn the differences between the different linux distro's!
Enjoy...
Yes, but it is slow. :)
.deb/apt-get
And if you ever tried upgrading Fedora from the command line, you know what for a mess it is.
I'm certain it isn't used successfully by YOU on more than a few servers if you say that...
We support thousands of systems, and know what the difference is
It's workable for most situations, but it's crappy technology compared to
Being popular as a distribution does not mean they are evil. And the comparison with Windows is just plain _stupid_
Microsoft promotes software patenting.
Microsoft embraces and extends open standards to break them - allows importing of data but only crappy exporting.
Now, I do agree that Ubuntu made some less popular decisions to make money.
While I don't like it either, they are easily apt-get removed.
Ubuntu also does their software development in OpenSource fashion.
I think some of the ubuntu-bashing is unjustified and unconstructive.
Ubuntu has a certain amount of critical mass which is very interesting and which leads to a better quality experience than for example with Fedora.
While I don't agree with all the 'dumbing down', it still allows power user to dive as deep as they want into the system and into the code. And I like the fact that it's not required for novice users.