That's your view. Notice that you correlate culture with sexual repression. That correlation is pure cultural bias. How so? Well, it's well established now that culture isn't something uniquely human and transmission of culture is well-documented in the case of primates. So, sexual repression and culture do not go hand-in-hand.
This is an argument often made by moralists, be they high-fallutin' phillosphers or the religious conservatives.
Another view is that sexual repression comes about as there's accumulation of capital, at which point you have arranged marriages, as evidenced by the studies of Bronislaw Malinowski in the Trobriand Islands, before the Christian missionaires brought about sexual repression, mentall illness and alcoholism. Arranged marriages can only work through sexual repression. In the case of the islanders at hand, such arranged marriages garanteed a surplus of food to the chief.
Granted, this is not universally accepted in Anthropology - it being the intellectual hodgepodge it is.
Statistically, if you keep out of 4chan meetings and otaku conferences, what's the chance of you meeting such loser with nothing better to do with his/her life?
So should Facebook officially be considered an Anti-Tits site?
Prospective users beware - in particular if you're fertile and have tits.
BTW, how is this any different from a racist site, or any other type of bigotry? "Sorry, no Jews on this site." I know I kinda stretched it, but what's this prejudice about?
What is the fucking rationale for Facebook to be up against this natural human act? Have they all been bottlefed?
Which proves the GPL serves well to enslave you to corporations.
Now, suppose the code was BSDed. Then, Sun would contribute to the codebase because it was good for them on many levels. Case in point: Apple and FreeBSD.
No, you are so wrong. There has been a huge debate over this amongst Linux and OpenBSD developers and even lawyer-pundits from the Church of the Free Software Foundation felt compelled to intervene.
Please research the issue better. Slashdot itself was one of the stages where this debate happened.
This "Contributor Agreement" is very stuff that creates the GPL dual-license scam/loophole (GPL/proprietary license), which is the same thing MySQL themselves did.
This isn't something Sun does. This is a structural possibility created by the GPL. As Stallman shaped his license around his fantasy, the world came to colide with his political views. Where these two collide is where you see this black-hole of Free Software called dual-licensing.
There isn't any other way out of this mess except to use a same-rules-apply-accross-the-board license like the BSD license (or any other widely-known business-frendly liecense). It's truly tit-for-tat. You fork, I fork. You cooperate, I cooperate. There isn't any distinction in empowerment between developers. The GPL allows for the creation of the dual-licensor and the relinquishor - that is, the rich man and the sucker.
Because you're supposed to give credit, where credit is due. Besides, in some legal situations there isn't a possibility of releasing stuff under public domain. I suspect that happened in the original BSD license ("Copyright the Regents of the University of California"). Also, a BSD license does not relinquish copyright. Please inform yourself better on these issues, lest you fall prey to political propaganda.
Bullshit. As MySQL demonstrated very well, the GPL allows for a dual-license scam, whereby developers repackage the contributions submitted by idealists and resell it under proprietary wrappings.
Only licenses like BSD truly empower both the owner of the original project and the contributors, by creating a same-rules-apply game: if you can create proprietary forks, I can too. This ensures a fundamental honesty: the BSD license enforces that contributing to the mainline codebase remains a rational choice, one in which it's counterproductive not to pool resources. Any other criterion, such as morality, rests on basis other than pure, rational, productive choices - such as political and philosophical views.
Again - what the MySQL story shows is that a GPLed project allows for a scam (a proprietary license), then gets GPLed again, then gets Yet Another Proprietary Fork, then Yet Another GPL Free Software Fork. It's not Sun that is to blame, but the license itself. Sun is trying to survive in an environment where IBM is doing everything possible to turn the UNIX landscape into a Linux monoculture.
I don't have numbers to show, but I'm under the impression more and more new project are concerned with being business-friendly and are adopting licenses that are not viral, like the GPL.
MySQL is a prime example how the GPL is a huge failure - unless you are a hardware company, like IBM, supporting the Linux kernel as a mere add-on for what you really sell.
First they dual-licensed it, creating a proprietary version of it, together with the GPL version. Now, again the thing is forked and the community splinters it yet again. So far this story has been going like this: GPL, then proprietary, then GPL, then proprietary, and now a GPL fork again. This is absurd. This represents the utter failure of the GPL as a model for open source pure software (by which I mean the vendor is not a hardware vendor), if the theory ever was that free software was a better, more rational way to pool resources. Unless, of course, you are one of those who substitute rationality and optimizing resources for moral concepts (like the moralists of the Church of GNU).
Before anyone points to Linux, let me say it's a kernel, and therefore is tied to hardware. For example, IBM does not thrive on Linux alone. Linux has been giving Solaris a hard time, because why would you pay for Solaris when you can get Linux for free? This is how IBM is competing with Sun and only blind people don't see that. IBM would love if the UNIX landscape became a Linux monoculture.
MySQL's story illustrates how harmful the GPL really is. First you create an uneven field, by creating two categories of developers - those who get rich selling the proprietary license, and the suckers - who provided them with free patches. By promoting this all-or-nothing standard, the GPL pushes developers into two categories - those that are coding for money, and those that are merely relinquishing the rewards of their labor. Nowhere was this more evident than in the case of MySQL where the suckers would give away the fruits of their labor so that MySQL could repackage it and resell it under a proprietary license.
The General Public License, by creating such a cleavage between for-profit and free (in the economic sense) development in actuality proves to be counterproductive, as we see yet again.
The BSD license and other business-friendly licenses are the only licenses that can level the field between working for money and contributing to a free software project. Either that, or you believe in Stallman's pipe dream that "all software will be free", by which he means the whole fucking world will produce GPL code. Sorry, it ain't gonna happen.
Usage of another format will probably arise and it can skyrocket up to the wazoo - it doesn't matter, because as long as people stick to standards - like jpeg, jpeg2000, png, etc - people will remain able to read those file formats for EONS to come because we know the MATH required to do it.
The problem is all those beloved Microsoft and other vendor proprietary formats, which they only know how what the specs are. Some time ago I met somebody who was responsible for archiving a shitload of financial statements reports (required by law in his business to be kept around for decades) and they were spending serious money trying recover files from another era, such as WordPerfect files.
Slashdot Mirror
That's your view. Notice that you correlate culture with sexual repression. That correlation is pure cultural bias. How so? Well, it's well established now that culture isn't something uniquely human and transmission of culture is well-documented in the case of primates. So, sexual repression and culture do not go hand-in-hand.
This is an argument often made by moralists, be they high-fallutin' phillosphers or the religious conservatives.
Another view is that sexual repression comes about as there's accumulation of capital, at which point you have arranged marriages, as evidenced by the studies of Bronislaw Malinowski in the Trobriand Islands, before the Christian missionaires brought about sexual repression, mentall illness and alcoholism. Arranged marriages can only work through sexual repression. In the case of the islanders at hand, such arranged marriages garanteed a surplus of food to the chief.
Granted, this is not universally accepted in Anthropology - it being the intellectual hodgepodge it is.
You do realize you committed a fallacy in retorting, don't you.
No, I didn't think so...
Statistically, if you keep out of 4chan meetings and otaku conferences, what's the chance of you meeting such loser with nothing better to do with his/her life?
I didn't exactly get what yoe were trying to say but let me point of to you that it's about the baby's well-being and not about MOB control.
You know - babies - those creatures that need feeding every so often - whenever and wherever they are. It's just Mother Nature, pal.
And, as your doctor and the World Health Organization will tell you, bottlefeeding is not an option unless it's absolutely unavoidable.
Oh, boy, you're one of those pervs who gets all excited by seing a mum nurse her baby, huh?
Hey, everheard of porn? Buy some. You need it. Badly.
So should Facebook officially be considered an Anti-Tits site?
Prospective users beware - in particular if you're fertile and have tits.
BTW, how is this any different from a racist site, or any other type of bigotry? "Sorry, no Jews on this site." I know I kinda stretched it, but what's this prejudice about?
What is the fucking rationale for Facebook to be up against this natural human act? Have they all been bottlefed?
Facebook developers please get psych counsel.
I don't think deciding whether breastfeeding is obscene or not should be up to the "majority vote".
Nursing a baby is a natural act. It's not on the same end of the spectrum as taking a shit. U know what I mean?
Let's keep things sane - babies are ok, moms nursing babies are ok.
Facebook is retarded. Fuck that, it's not even retarded, it's mental illness.
...where just about every natural human act is considered ether porn or perversion.
It's sad how in the United States' culture extreme violence is tolerated as entertainment and nursing babies is obscene.
When will we learn we are just primates? Oh, wait, we're not, because we were made "in God's image."
That's nice. But what I need is something like CUDA (form NVIDIA).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA
Which proves the GPL serves well to enslave you to corporations.
Now, suppose the code was BSDed. Then, Sun would contribute to the codebase because it was good for them on many levels. Case in point: Apple and FreeBSD.
No, you are so wrong. There has been a huge debate over this amongst Linux and OpenBSD developers and even lawyer-pundits from the Church of the Free Software Foundation felt compelled to intervene.
Please research the issue better. Slashdot itself was one of the stages where this debate happened.
This "Contributor Agreement" is very stuff that creates the GPL dual-license scam/loophole (GPL/proprietary license), which is the same thing MySQL themselves did.
This isn't something Sun does. This is a structural possibility created by the GPL. As Stallman shaped his license around his fantasy, the world came to colide with his political views. Where these two collide is where you see this black-hole of Free Software called dual-licensing.
There isn't any other way out of this mess except to use a same-rules-apply-accross-the-board license like the BSD license (or any other widely-known business-frendly liecense). It's truly tit-for-tat. You fork, I fork. You cooperate, I cooperate. There isn't any distinction in empowerment between developers. The GPL allows for the creation of the dual-licensor and the relinquishor - that is, the rich man and the sucker.
"The software" is an abstract entity.
"The user" is a real entity, e.g., someone who has to feed his kids.
I can see why the GPL license has such an appeal with students or celibates like Stallman and his Church of the Holy GNU.
Because you're supposed to give credit, where credit is due. Besides, in some legal situations there isn't a possibility of releasing stuff under public domain. I suspect that happened in the original BSD license ("Copyright the Regents of the University of California"). Also, a BSD license does not relinquish copyright. Please inform yourself better on these issues, lest you fall prey to political propaganda.
Bullshit. As MySQL demonstrated very well, the GPL allows for a dual-license scam, whereby developers repackage the contributions submitted by idealists and resell it under proprietary wrappings.
Only licenses like BSD truly empower both the owner of the original project and the contributors, by creating a same-rules-apply game: if you can create proprietary forks, I can too. This ensures a fundamental honesty: the BSD license enforces that contributing to the mainline codebase remains a rational choice, one in which it's counterproductive not to pool resources. Any other criterion, such as morality, rests on basis other than pure, rational, productive choices - such as political and philosophical views.
Again - what the MySQL story shows is that a GPLed project allows for a scam (a proprietary license), then gets GPLed again, then gets Yet Another Proprietary Fork, then Yet Another GPL Free Software Fork. It's not Sun that is to blame, but the license itself. Sun is trying to survive in an environment where IBM is doing everything possible to turn the UNIX landscape into a Linux monoculture.
I don't have numbers to show, but I'm under the impression more and more new project are concerned with being business-friendly and are adopting licenses that are not viral, like the GPL.
MySQL is a prime example how the GPL is a huge failure - unless you are a hardware company, like IBM, supporting the Linux kernel as a mere add-on for what you really sell.
First they dual-licensed it, creating a proprietary version of it, together with the GPL version. Now, again the thing is forked and the community splinters it yet again. So far this story has been going like this: GPL, then proprietary, then GPL, then proprietary, and now a GPL fork again. This is absurd. This represents the utter failure of the GPL as a model for open source pure software (by which I mean the vendor is not a hardware vendor), if the theory ever was that free software was a better, more rational way to pool resources. Unless, of course, you are one of those who substitute rationality and optimizing resources for moral concepts (like the moralists of the Church of GNU).
Before anyone points to Linux, let me say it's a kernel, and therefore is tied to hardware. For example, IBM does not thrive on Linux alone. Linux has been giving Solaris a hard time, because why would you pay for Solaris when you can get Linux for free? This is how IBM is competing with Sun and only blind people don't see that. IBM would love if the UNIX landscape became a Linux monoculture.
MySQL's story illustrates how harmful the GPL really is. First you create an uneven field, by creating two categories of developers - those who get rich selling the proprietary license, and the suckers - who provided them with free patches. By promoting this all-or-nothing standard, the GPL pushes developers into two categories - those that are coding for money, and those that are merely relinquishing the rewards of their labor. Nowhere was this more evident than in the case of MySQL where the suckers would give away the fruits of their labor so that MySQL could repackage it and resell it under a proprietary license.
The General Public License, by creating such a cleavage between for-profit and free (in the economic sense) development in actuality proves to be counterproductive, as we see yet again.
The BSD license and other business-friendly licenses are the only licenses that can level the field between working for money and contributing to a free software project. Either that, or you believe in Stallman's pipe dream that "all software will be free", by which he means the whole fucking world will produce GPL code. Sorry, it ain't gonna happen.
Word is a proprietary format.
You'd be wise to convert all your Word stuff to OpenOffice format.
No kiddin' !
No, we'are conducting a hive-mind back up of this story.
You just don't get it.
Ok, dudes, if he's got radiation problems, he's got bigger problems than data storage.
What LTO-4 tape drives do you recommend that work with FreeBSD?
You guys remember this?
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061126-8288.html
See also:
"Can you get 256Gb on an A4 sheet of paper? No way!"
http://www.techworld.com/storage/news/index.cfm?newsid=7432
Overall, it was a scam. But the idea of somehow using a durable physical medium seems pretyy good, no?
PS: OK, this doesn't solve the OPs original question.
It gets posted on the front page because it's a serious matter.
You forgot to say he has to run checks periodically to check for drive "health" status.
Usage of another format will probably arise and it can skyrocket up to the wazoo - it doesn't matter, because as long as people stick to standards - like jpeg, jpeg2000, png, etc - people will remain able to read those file formats for EONS to come because we know the MATH required to do it.
Wait, a jpeg will be readable because we have access to the standard . So it's a matter of having the standard and then writing the software.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG
The problem is all those beloved Microsoft and other vendor proprietary formats, which they only know how what the specs are. Some time ago I met somebody who was responsible for archiving a shitload of financial statements reports (required by law in his business to be kept around for decades) and they were spending serious money trying recover files from another era, such as WordPerfect files.